Skip to main content

Full text of "Fish and Wildlife Management Report December 1, 1956"

See other formats




December 1, 1956 



FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 



REPORT 



PROVINCE OF ONTARIO 

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND FORESTS 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 



Hon. Clare E. Mapledoram 
Minister 



F.A. MacDougall 
Deputy Minister 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 

Experimental Wetlands Appraisal in Southern Ontario. 

- by H. Gray Merriam 1 

An Evaluation of Canada Goose Kills by the Indians of 
Northern Ontario. 

- by Harold C. Hanson and Campbell Currie 20 

Waterfowl Survey of Northwestern Ontario, 1950. 

- by Lester W. Gray 30 

Waterfowl Shooting Around a Small Sanctuary, 

- by D. N. Neill 34 

Waterfowl Caught in Muskrat Traps, Kemptville District, 
1955-1956o - by G. C. Myers and J. B, Dawson 36 

Luther Marsh Game Bag Census, October 6, 1956. 

- by J. F. Gage 41 

Mourning Dove Road Counts. - by L. J. Stock 43 

Report on 1956 Trip to the Slate Islands. 

- by H. G. Cumming 44 

Report on a Winter Marten Trapping Project White River 
District. - by E. A. Pozzo 52 

Introduction of Carp Into Ontario. - by Anonymous 54 

Winter Search for Ouananiche, Athelstane and Cliff Lakes, 

Port Arthur District. - by R. A. Ryder 55 

Fish Tagging Studies in Whitefish Bay, Lake of the Woods 

in 1954 and 1955. - by J. M. Fraser 53 

Summary of Fur Returns by Ontario Game Management 

Districts, 1955-1956. 63 



(THESE REPORTS ARE FOR INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL 
INFORMATION AND NOT FOR PUBLICATION) 



EXPERBiENTAL WETLANDS APPRAISAL IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 

H. Gray Merriam 
Ontario Department of Lands and Forests 
Fish and Wildlife Division 

ABSTRACT 

Three townships and portions of 2 others in southern 
Ontario were used as test areas for 4 wetland appraisal techniques. 
A field method using concession-block* aerial mosaics and punch-type 
index cards was superior to the others tested. Inventory of one 
township of 95 square miles required 25 man-days and cost appro- 
ximately 4p3 • 25 per square mile surveyed. Pre-survey planning and 
educational programs were lacking from this survey. Factual values 
of wetlands resources should be publicized along with proposals for 
acquisition and management before inventory is undertaken. Govern- 
ment agencies other than those concerned with wildlife management 
hold shares in wetlands resources. Certain of these other agencies 
may be currently fitted to inventory and acquire wetlands in southern 
Ontario more economically than the Ontario Department of Lands and 
Forests. Wetlands acquisition is an economical method of preserving 
valuable natural areas and wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat and 
recreation areas have not been produced more cheaply in southern 
Ontario than they might be by wetland acquisition. Minnesota pur- 
chased nearly 25,000 wetland acres for about : i?29«50 per acre. 
This means of habitat restoration warrants consideration. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The advice and criticisms of Dr. A. de Vos, Associate 
Professor, Ontario Agricultural College and Mr. A. T. Cringan, Ontario 
Department of Lands and Forests guided this investigation to com- 
pletion. Working facilities were supplied by the Department of 
Entomology and Zoology of the Ontario Agricultural College at Guelph, 
Ontario. The Ontario Department of Planning and Development co- 
operated in supplying data from their River Valley Conservation 
Surveys. Timber Management Division of the Ontario Department of 
Lands and Forests supplied all aerial photographs. 

THE 1956 EXPERIMENTAL SURVEY 

Experimental wetlands surveys were conducted on about 
175,000 acres in Southern Ontario during the period May to August, 
195o. Fieldwork covered the whole of Puslinch, Guelph and Eramosa 
Townships and a portion of Erin Township, in Wellington County, as 
well as 20,000 acres in Mulmur Township, Dufferin County. Four 
experimental techniques for appraising wetlands resources in Southern 
Ontario were organized. 

Detailed descriptions of the 4 techniques are given in 
Appendix I. The techniques are numbered in the order in which they 
were developed. 

* the area bounded by 2 concession roads and 2 cross roads or their 
rights-of-way. 



Technique 1 — Non dispensable photographs: topographic map; field forms 
~ Method 

The initial method (Technique 1) was based on the plant 
associations of an hydrosere. Efficiency of this method was low for 
several reasons. 

1) Unnecessary time was used in sorting photos to obtain 
coverage of the desired concession-block. 

2) Photos were borrowed and had to remain in the vehicle. 
Consequently the fieldman had no quide, other than his memory, to the 
location or condition of the several wetlands he had to inspect while 
away from the vehicle. 

3) Wetland locations recorded on a 1 inch: 1 mile topographic 
map were unsatisfactory because of small sizes or high densities of 
wetlands. No other method of recording locations was possible with this 
technique . 

4) When fieldwork was completed all photographs and all 
field sheets had to be consulted to obtain the coverage for each con- 
cession-block which contained wetlands. The wetland then had to be 
planimetered and the area datum recorded with the other data for that 
wetland. Much more time was expended in this operation than would be 
necessary if the photographic coverage for each concession-block was 
indexed and readily accessible. 

A cost breakdown of a survey by this method is given in 
Table II and its accompanying text. 

Technique- 2 -- Concession-block mosaic's: field forms Method 

Technique 2 was organized for the following purposes. 

1) Provide a guide for the fieldman. 

2) Produce accurate records of wetlands locations. 

3) Provide permanent records of the condition of wetlands 
during the survey. 

4) Speed up planimetering of wetlands 1 areas. The index 
on each mosaic folder allowed easy access to the photo coverage and 
wetlands data for any concession-block. 

Summarizing data from this method was unwieldy. Each folder 
contained data on several wetland types; all folders had to be in- 
spected once for each wetland type. This was time consuming. 

An advantage of this approach is that mosaics used for wet- 
lands surveys may be used for other purposes, such as upland game 
surveys, by other investigators. 



This method may be modified by recording "Dispersion" and 
"Plant Associations" (Punch Card Index Sheet) on every tenth wetland. 
These data are of use only in establishing the typical vegetative 
complex of each of the 10 wetlands types. Labour expenditure would 
be reduced in this way. 

The Mulmur Township area on which this technique was tested 
had such a low wetland density that a quantitative comparison of the 
efficiency of this technique with other techniques was not possible. 
Table I gives a qualitative comparison. 

Usefulness of this method hinges on the availability of 
dispensable, recent photo coverage. 

Techni que 3 -- Non-dispensable photographs: punch cards Method 

Technique 3 was organized to reauce time required for 
summarizing and to provide better permanent records of descriptive 
data. 

Efficiency of a survey by this method (using borrowed photos) 
was limited by the disadvantages given under Technique 1 which also 
employs non-dispensable photo coverage . 

Technique 3 has some advantages over Technique 1. Recording 
and summarizing data was aided by the use of punch cards. Additional 
analyses of the data recorded on these cards can be undertaken later; 
blank punch holes are reserved for this purpose. 

Technique 4 -- Concession-block mosaics: punch cards Metho d 

Technique 4 employed the most efficient means of guiding 
fieldmen and recording wetlands locations combined with the most 
useful means of recording descriptive data. Permanent records were 
produced which can be easily stored and analysed. 

This method was not field tested because no dispensable photo 
coverage was available at this time. The comparative values shown in 
Table I are valid without field trial because both concession-block 
mosaics and punch cards have been tested as components of other 
techniques. 

Accuracy 

A check on the accuracy of fieldwork carried out during the 
1956 field season was not possible. Error was unavoidable, however, 
because of growth changes in aquatic vegetation. Some potholes in- 
spected in May had no vegetation; late in July or early in August 
some of these same units would have been well vegetated and would have 
been classed as deep marshes. Phenological errors cannot be avoided 
when long field seasons must be used. More complete knowledge of the 
ecology of individual wetlands of each of the various types will allow 
correction for these errors. 



TABLE I 
QUALITATIVE COMPARISON OF EFFICIENCY OF FOUR WETLAND APPRAISAL TECHNIQUES 

Rated in Labour Expenditure for: 
Pre-survey 
^ Preparation Fieldwork Summarizing ^Usefulness 



Technique 1 
(non-dispensable high 

photos: topo map: 

field forms) 

Technique 2 
(concession-block high 

mosaics: field 

forms) 

Technique 3 

(non-dispensable average 

photos: topo map: 

punch cards) 

Technique 4 

(concession-block average 
mosaics: punch cards) 



high 



low 



average 



high 



average 



low 



average 



low 



poor 



fair 



fair 



excellent 



* In addition to labour expended, value and multiple usefulness of the 
permanent records obtained (as discussed under Technique 4) are 
considered. 



Labour and Costs Involved in Wetlands Appraisal 

Table II compares the labour expended in surveying 3 townships 
with the wetlands densities in these areas. With a density of one 
wetland on each #7 acres of map area a large number of wetlands and a 
small map area can be surveyed per day. In an area with one wetland 
on each 270 acres more time is spent travelling between wetlands. Con- 
sequently a smaller number of wetlands and a larger map area can be 
surveyed per day. Table II refers to a survey by Technique I. 

TABLE II 

LABOUR EXPENDED IN WETLANDS SURVEY OF KNOWN SAMPLE AREAS 
(Total sample area 144,313 acres) 



Density 
(Acres/wetland) 



Number of wetlands 
inspected/man-day 



Total land acreage 
inspected/man-day 



*7 
270 

239 



30 
17 
23-5 



2600 
4623 
6775 






v? 









x 



X 









/ v 









N/ 



V 



K 









1 






















Survey Costs for Known and Unknown Sample Areas 

Puslinch Township, Wellington County, Ontario has a map area 
of 59,904 acres with a wetland density of 1 wetland per 87 acres. 
Twenty-three man-days of fieldwork and 2 man-days of office time were 
required to completely survey this township (using Technique 1). 

This survey cost approximately ^309.50 or ^3*25 per square 
mile of map area surveyed. (Estimate includes salary, transportation 
and office materials. Photographic coverage was supplied at no cost 
by the Timber Management Division of the Ontario Department of Lands and 
Forests. ) 

Estimates of labour required to survey unknown areas may be 
derived from Table II. By extrapolation an hypothetical township of 
50,000 acres map area with a wetland density of 1 wetland per 1#3 acres 
might require from 11 to 14 man-days of fieldwork plus 2 man-days office 
time. This estimate assumes a one-man crew. Labour may be reduced by 
the use of a 2 man crew, as discussed later in this report. 



Approximate costs of survey may be determined 
this estimate. 



in advance , from 



i • Education and Publicity 

Pre-survey educational programs are essential. Publicity 
should be applied at all levels if wetlands conservation is to be 
successful. 



Publicity at the administrative level, both inter- and intra- 
departmental is vital to the enlistment of biologists, soil scientists, 
agriculturalists and others in a combined effort. 

When the public -- wetland owners and urbanites -- know the 
meaning of "wetlands" and "wetlands survey", a sense of values of wet- 
lands may be formed. 

Fieldmen should execute a follow-up to preliminary publicity. 
The fieldmen' s understanding of wetlands, their values and their possible 
place in the future, must be adequate to answer the landowners' ques- 
tions satisfactorily. This situation is possible only if administra- 
tive chiefs have given their fieldmen a full understanding of the 
wetlands program. 

Unless pre-planned programs of acquisition and management have 
been formed publicity is not desirable. 

Wetlands educational programs should be based on facts. 
Special air surveys to determine the amount game species use wetlands 
have been used elsewhere in this fact finding. The percentage of a 
total number of observations on a game species that were made in 
wetland areas may also be convincing. 



Survey Administration 
Fieldwork 

Wetlands survey fieldwork could be accomplished in several 
ways. Surveys could be executed by: special inventory biologists, 
existing district staff, special summer student crews or existing 
staff of Departments other than Lands and Forests. 

Inventory biologists are not yet available in the Ontario 
Department of Lands and Forests. 

Existing district staff, whether biologists or conservation 
officers, in the present organization, would be able to inspect wet- 
lands only on a part-time basis. Some data would possibly be outdated 
before the completion of such a survey. 

Special crews of summer students (Forestry, Biology or 
Agriculture) could conduct the fieldwork adequately. However, addi- 
tional supervisory staff would have to be provided. 

Existing field staff of other departments potentially could 
inspect many wetlands in southern Ontario. As an example, field crews 
of the Ontario Department of Planning and Development recently covered 
much of the area included in this year's wetland survey. These crews 
will continue River Valley Conservation Surveys in areas that should 
be surveyed for wetlands. Such field crews could do wetlands field- 
work if supplied with materials and instructions. Survey costs 
would be significantly reduced if fieldwork could be accomplished in 
this way. 

The monotony of wetlands fieldwork reduces efficiency and 
accuracy if a one-man crew is employed steadily at this work. This 
situation could be partially corrected if one-man crews carried on 
other work, such as mammal or plant collecting, along with wetlands 
inspection. The modification of Technique 2 mentioned above would 
likewise relieve monotony for a single worker. A two-man crew, 
working from one vehicle but separately in the field would be more 
satisfactory than a lone worker. 

Acquisition and Management 

In other wetlands resources programs inventory has been 
followed by acquisition. Acquisition (or some other phase of manage- 
ment) should follow inventory closely--if inventory data are to be 
useful for acquisition purposes. Acquisition even without immediate 
management would at least assure the continued existence of the 
purchased units. River Valley Authorities could potentially incor- 
porate the fieldwork and administration of wetlands acquisition in 
their current land acquisition programs. 

What agency will manage the acquired wetlands? This is one 
question that should be answered before inventory plans will be 
complete. 



APPENDIX I I - 1 

G ENERAL INSTRUCT IONS 
(Apply to all techniques) 

1) Include all areas over 1/4 acre in size. 

2) Include open water areas up to 10 acres in size (July conditions). 
(Open water areas over 10 acres should be covered by a separate 
lake survey. ) 

3 ) Include river and stream bottomlands and their shoreline vegeta- 
tion. 

4) Include artificial impoundments or dugouts only if over 1/2 acre 

in size and only if wildlife habitat on the area has been improved. 

DESCRIPTIONS OF FOUR WETLANDS SURVEY FIELD METHODS 

Technique 1 -- Non-dispensable photographs: topographic map: field forms 
Method. 

P re- survey Preparation 

Number all concession-blocks directly on the topographic 
sheet, starting with No. 1 in each township and numbering consecutively 
until the township is completed. 

Draw and number all photographic flight lines directly on the 
topographic sheet. This may be done by locating the first and last 
photos of each line, on the map, and joining these locations. 

Prepare enough field forms for the area to be surveyed. (See 
attached sample.) 

F ieldwork 

Photos are referred to before entering the area, but are left 
in the vehicle; only the topographic map and field sheets are taken 
directly into the field. Data are recorded according to the attached 
"Instructions for Completing Wetlands Field Form", 

S ummarizing 

Summarize to obtain the following data for each type of 
wetland: 1) total number of wetlands, 2) total acreage, 3 J area class 
distribution in four acreage classes (0 to 0.99, 1.00 to 4«99> 5»00 to 
9.99 and 10.00 plus), 4) total number and total acreage of drainable 
wetlands of each type and the percentage these form of all wetlands 
of this type, 5) same as 4) for conditions of grazing. 

From these summaries, by type of wetland, the data shown 
on the attached sample table for Puslinch Township are derived. 



X! 

CO 

S 
o 

EH 



J-J 



h3 

T) 
CD 
H 
•H 

a 
6 
o 
o 



Remarks 


» 

I 


i 


i 


, 1 

I 
i • 
































1 

Game and 
sign seen 


1 

I 
i 

I 
1 






































Quality 
nearby 
cover 

P,F,G,VG 


j i 

! 




































Adjacent or 
nearby cover 










































Drain- Grazed 
ability ! or not 
D or U [G or U 
















































1 
































CO 

CD 
u 
o 






































— 


— 


i 

.Quality 
Predominant Vegetation ;P,F,G,VG 


1 

I 

1 










































































c 
o 

•H 

-P 

o 
o 
k3 










































Date 




I 

■ 


— 






j 

i 

i i . . 









> 




~r i 









1-3 
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING WETLANDS FIELD FORM 

Type ; Record data for only one type or one subtype of wetland on 
each field sheet. ( See Wetland Classification Guide for a 
description of each wetland type.) 

If an individual wetland is composed of two or more types 
or subtypes, over 1/4 acre in size, enter each subdivision on 
the appropriate field sheet. (See also Location . ) 

D ate : Record month, date and year as April 12/56. Do not use 
4/12/56. 

Location : Record as Block No. — Wetland No. e.g. 2 - 9 

Concession — Lot (s) V - S£5, N£6 

Number each concession block (area outlined by roads) con- 
secutively for the county or township. 

Number the individual areas, starting with No. 1 in each 
concession block and numbering consecutively until each con- 
cession block is completed. Number the individual areas on 
the topographic map as on the field sheets. 

If an individual wetland is composed of two or more types 
or subtypes, number each subdivision separately. (See also 
Type . ) 

P redominant Record only those species which are dominant and in some 
V egetation : way characterize the individual wetland and the wetland type 
in which you have classed it. List the species briefly, in 
descending order of abundance. (See Symbol sheet for standard 
abbreviations. ) Where possible, record plant 

associations rather than single species. Record each asso- 
ciation in brackets, in descending order of importance, as 
(Cattail: Sweet flag; Horsetail). 

S hape : Note the topographic. .outline of the area as one of 

1) irregular, 2) round, 3) elongate. Record as I, R or E. 

A cres : Determine the area from the air photo by planimeter or 
acetate jig. Record to the nearest 1/4 acre. 

D rain - This refers to ECONOMIC drainability . Record as either "D" 
ability : (drainable) or "U" (undrainable) on the basis of the three 
following factors. 

1) Can the area be economically drained by gravity? (tile or 
ditch) . 

2) Is the water supply currently used by the owner (e.g. stock 
water source) and will this use prohibit drainage in the near 
future? 

3) Does the wet area hinder tillage of the field? 

Grazing : Record as either "G" (grazed) or "U" (ungrazed). If the 
area is lightly grazed, record as ungrazed but note O.T.G. 
(open to grazing) in the Remarks column. 

Adjacent Record the type of cover within 100 yeard of the mapped 
Cover : area as; woods, plantation, cropland, improved pasture or 
unimproved pasture. Record as W, PL, C, IP, or UP. 









I - 4 



Easily 
Impounded? 

Any 
Inflow? : 



Record "Yes" if the area obviously can be easily impounded. 
Do not record if "No". 

Record the nature of any evident inflow into the area such 
as: spring, seepage, temporary stream or permanent stream. 
Do not record if no inflow. 



W ildlife Record common names of game, tracks, droppings, cuttings 
ization : or other signs of utilization seen on, over or near the 
area. Note age and sex where possible. 



Remarks: 



Record obvious land use trends, intentions expressed by 
landowner or other data pertinent to the wildlife values 
of the wetland. 



I - 5 




■X3 <*ho8 
o o 

•fl 

O QttS<D 

■H T* 

^ «-H 

03 -PW 

bO 4JCXG 

•H C0JO 

fe OOo 



1-6 

Technique 2 -- Concession-block mosaics: field forms Method. 

Pre- survey Preparation 

Number concession blocks on a topographic sheet as in 
Technique 1. 

Prepare one cap-size manilla file folder for each concession- 
block to be surveyed. Index the folders with County, Concession, Lots, 
Township and Block Number for the mosaic each will contain. 

Cut mosaic sections from the original photos to form complete, 
separate mosaics for each concession-block to be surveyed. Mark the 
block number and a north direction arrow on the back of each mosaic 
section, as cut . Paste these sections, on the left, inside the pre- 
pared manTTla folders. Mark a direction arrow on each folder beside 
the mosaic. 

Prepare field forms (see attached sample) and fasten one in 
each manilla folder, opposite the mosaic. (An extra field form may be 
attached later if required.) 

Field work 

The appropriate manilla folder is taken directly into the 
field. Each wetland is outlined and numbered on the photo and the 
description recorded opposite the corresponding wetland number on the 
field sheet. Data is recorded as described in Technique 1. 

Summarizing 

Each field sheet contains data on several types of wetlands; 
folders must each be inspected to summarize the data for each type of 
wetland. When summary by type is accomplished, proceed toward the 
final summary as outlined in Technique 1. 

Technique 3 — Non-dispensable photos: topographic map: punch card 
Method . 

P re- survey Preparation 

Office preparation for this method is identical with that 
of Technique 1 except no field sheets are needed. Punch-type index 
cards (4" x 6") are substituted. (See attached code sheet and sample 
card. ) 

F ieldwork 

Fieldwork in this method is identical with Technique 1 except 
recording is by marking the appropriate hole, on the card, with pencil 
and writing additional information on the face of the card. Punch holes 
are only marked in the field, and punched later, to preserve the card's 
margin. 






! 






i : 1 






1 ' ' 






: 1 

I 

i ': 


\" 


■ 






j 




!w 


i 

! 


.: 1 




t 


| 


\f 


i 














i 


i 



PUNCH CARD INDEX SHEET 



i - a 



DISPERSION (% surface area 
covered ) 

Open water 

0% 1 

- 10% 1, 2 

10 - 40% 2 

40 - 100% 2, 3 



Floating, not rooted 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 

Submerged rooted 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 

Floating rooted 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 

Emergent broad-leaved 
0% 9 

- 10% 9,10 

10 - 40% 10 
40 - 100% 10,11 



3 

3, 4 

4 

4, 5 



5 
6, 7 



8, 9 



Emergent reed-like 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 

Gramineae and Carex 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 

Shrubs 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 

Trees 
0% 

- 10% 
10 - 40% 
40 - 100% 



11 

11,12 

12 

12,13 



13 

13,14 
14 
14,15 



15 

15,16 
16 
16,17 



17 

17, IS 
18 
IB, 19 



TYPE 

Pothole A 
Pothole B 
Artificial 
Deep Marsh 
Shallow Marsh 
Shrub Swamp A 
Shrub Swamp B 
Bog A 
Bog B 
Timbered Swamp 

ADJACEImT COVER 
Woodlot 
Plantation 
Crop 

Improved Pasture 
Unimproved Pasture 



20 

20,21 

21 

21,22 

22 

22,23 

23 

23,24 

24 

24,25 

26 
27 
2$ 

29 

30 



SHAPE 

Irregular 31,32 

Round 32 

Elongate 33 

AREA CLASS 

- 0.99 34 

1.00 - 4.99 34,35 

5.00 - 9.99 35 

10.00 plus 36 

DRAINABILITT 

Yes 37 

No 3a 

GRAZED 

Yes 39 

No 40 

No but O.T.G. 41 

EASILY IMPOUNDED 

Yes 42 

No 43 

ANY INFLOW 

Yes 44 

No 45 

WRITE ON CARD 
County- 
Township 
Concession 
Lots 
Date 
Worker 

Plant Associations 
Area 

Game and Sign seen 
Remarks 



1-9 



Summarizing 

Summarizing is accomplished by needle-sorting the punch cards 
and proceeding identically as in Technique 1. In addition, the modal 
and mean percentages of each ecological type of vegetation may be de- 
termined for each wetland type. 

Technique 1+ -- Concession-block mosaics: punch card Method 

Pre-survey Preparation 

Concession-block mosaics are prepared as in Technique 2 but 
no field forms are needed. Punch cards (Technique 3) are substituted. 

Fieldwork 

Mosaic folders are taken directly into the field along with 
a supply of punch cards. Wetlands locations are recorded by outlining 
and numbering directly on the mosaic. 

All descriptive data are recorded on the punch cards — one 
card for each wetland unit. 

Summarizing 

Summarizing is identical with Technique 3» 



■> > i * 'j ^> y 3 ") 2 :>:> ■ j> ;> 3 a 3 o ? o b o 0o 3 



3 
3 






County 



Date 
Worker 



Township 
Block - Wetland No. 
Concession - Lot(s) 



Plant Associations 

Area 

Game and Sign 

Remarks 



7 
3 

-y 

3 
3 

3 



3O^3^CD0-> 



•; "> 3 3 3 3 



3 -> >. 



APPENDIX II II - 1 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRAINING WETLANDS SURVEY FIELDMEN 

Very little training should be necessary for fieldmen who 
have studied elementary plant ecology. Other personnel should receive 
an adequate review of the ecological stages and substages of an 
hydrosere. Fieldmen should be impressed with the lack of definity 
of these ecological stages as encountered in the field; heterogeneous 
admixtures of several stages should be expected. 

Recognition of the trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants listed 
on the wetlands "Symbol Sheets" (attached) would be adequate for work 
in the Guelph area. 

Familiarity with collecting and keying procedures would be 
useful. 

Field recognition of aquatic plants throughout the entire 
field season is next to impossible. Therefore the fieldmen should be 
able to classify wetlands ecologically when unable to determine all 
the genera of plants found on the area. 

The following are useful references and field handbooks. 

Fassett. Manual of Aquatic Plants . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., • 
New York. 1940. 

Meunschner. Aquatic Plants of the United States . Comstock Publishing 
Company, Ithaca, New York. 1944. 

Weaver and Clements. Plant Ecology . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 
New York. 1929. 



n 






II - 2 



SYMBOL SHEET 



The symbols for Trees and Shrubs, Forest Cover Types and 
Herbaceous Plants shown on this sheet are only partial lists. Species 
encountered in other regions but not represented on these lists must 
be added as encountered. 



Trees and Shrubs 



ALg grey alder 

ASb black ash 

ASw white ash 

BIw white birch 

BIy yellow birch 

CEw white cedar 

CR cranberry 

DOs dogwood shrubs 

ELc corky (rock) elm 

ELr red (slippery) elm 

ELw white elm 

Fib balsam fir 

GA Gale 

HAs hawthorn shrubs 

HE hemlock 

LAt tamarack 

LEI leather leaf 

MAh hard maple 

MAr red maple 

MAs silver ma pi© 

PIj jack pine 

PIr red pine 

Pis scotch pine 

PIw white pine 

POb balsam poplar 

P01 large tooth aspen 

POt trembling aspen 

SPa Spiraea 

SPb black spruce 

SPw white spruce 

Wlb black willow 

Wis willow shrubs 



Alnus rugosa 
Fraxinus nigra 
Fraxinus americana 
Betula papyrifera 
Betula lutea 
Thuja occidentalis 
Vaccinium spp. 
Cornus spp. 
Ulmus Thomasi 
Ulmus rubra 
Ulmus americana 
Abies balsamea 
Myrica Gale 
Crataegus spp. 
Tsuga canadensis 
Larix decidua 
Chamaedaphne calyculata 
Acer saccharum 
Acer rub rum 
Acer saccharinum 
Pinus Banksiana 
Pinus resinosa 
Pinus sylvestris 
Pinus Strobus 
Populus balsamifera 
Populus grand id ent at a 
Populus t remuloides 
Spiraea alba " 
Picea mariana 
Picea glauc a 
Salix nigra 
Salix spp. 



Trees and Shrubs are symbolized by writing the first two 
letters of the proper noun in capitals, followed by the initial letter 
oi the qualifying adjective, written in the lower case. Grev alder is 
represented by AL(der) g(rey). y • 



It 



II - 3 

Forest Cover Types K 

4 Aspen 

6 Paper birch 

21 White spruce - balsam fir - paper birch 

22 Balsam fir 
24 White cedar 
2 5 Tamarack 

26 Black ash - white elm - red or silver maple 

60 Silver maple - white elm 

60A White elm 

38 Willow 

H (hardwood) denotes a stand composed of $0% or more 
broad-leaved trees. 

C (coniferous) denotes a stand composed of 80% or more 
coniferous trees. 



M (mixed) denotes a stand composed of less than 
broad-leaved trees and less than $0% conifers. 



x The numbers used to represent forest cover types are according 
to the Society of American Foresters (1940) system. Additional cover 
type symbols may be found in Forest Cover Types of the Eastern United 
States - Society of American Foresters, 1940, or in the River Valley 
Conservation Reports published by the Ontario Department of Planning 
and Development, 

NOTE t These are some of the associations of tree species found 
.commonly in wetlands. All associations of trees encountered will 
not fit the designated types exactly. Place each woodlot in the type 
it fits most closely then note any additional species as in the 
following examples. 

A stand composed predominantly of aspen with some white cedar 
is recorded as "4 with CEw". Similarly a woodlot predominantly 
white cedar but with some tamarack is noted as "24 with LAt" . 

Herbaceous Plant s** (Partial list) 



ACc 


Acorus calamus 


Sweet flag 


AL 


Algae 


Algae 


ASi 


Asclepias incarnata 


Swamp milkweed 


CAs 


Carex spp. 


Sedges 


ELs 


Eleocharis spp. 


Spike rush 


ELc 


Elodea canadensis 


Canada waterweed 


EQs 


Equisetum spp. 


Horsetail 


IRv 


Iris versicolor 


Iris 


JUs 


Juncus spp. 


Spike rush 


LA 


Labiatae 


Mint family 


LEg 


Ledum groenlandicum 


Labrador tea 


NUa 


Nuphar advena 


Yellow water lily 


NYo 


Nymphaea odorata 


White water lily 


POc 


Pontederia cordata 


Pickerelweed 


POs 


Potamogeton spp. 


Pondweeds 


POLs 


Polygonum spp. 


Smartweeds 


SA1 


Sagittaria latifolia 


Duck potato 


SCs 


Scirpus spp. 


Bulrush 


Sis 


Sium suave 


Water parsnip 


SPs 


Sphagnum spp. 


Sphagnum moss 


TY1 


Typha latifolia 


Cattail 



II - 4 

**Herbaceous plants are not symbolized according to an 
accepted system. These species are represented by writing the first 
two letters of the generic name in capitals followed by the initial 
letter of the specific name, written in the lower case. (A lower 
case "s" represents several species of the genus.) 

Terms used under the heading "DISPERSION" on the Punch 
Card Index Sheet are based on the recognized ecological stages of an 
hydrosere. "Floating, not rooted" refers to such plants as Lemna spp, 
and Wolffia spp. "Submerged rooted" includes Elodea canadensis and 
Chara spp. Typha spp., Sagittaria spp., Pontederia spp., and Calla 
palustris are "Emergent broad-leaved". "Emergent reed-like" vegeta- 
tion is exemplified by Juncus spp., Eleocharis spp., Scirpus spp. 
and others. Gramineae and Carex are grouped together because they 
both occur in adjacency, in some proportion, around most wetland 
areas. 



- 20 - 

AN EVALUATION OF CANADA GOOSE KILLS 
BY THE INDIANS OF NORTHERN ONTARIO 

-l by ? 

Harold C. Hanson x and Campbell Currie^ 



In 1946, the U. S. portion of the Mississippi Flyway 
was closed to the hunting of Canada geese. The flyway closure 
proclamation came as the ultimate climax to a series of years 
of excessive kills in Illinois in the vicinity of the Horseshoe 
Lake Game Preserve. In 1947, the season on Canada geese was 
reopened with a bag limit of one bird per day. Further pro- 
tection was given the goose flock wintering at Horseshoe Lake 
by closing to hunting a large sector of private land around 
this refuge. These and further restrictions, an expanded 
refuge program, plus a series of favorable breeding seasons 
enabled the Mississippi Valley flyway flock to regain and then 
far exceed its earlier numbers. Today, the present population 
considerably exceeds that of any time in recent decades. 

The hunting of Canada geese in Ontario, i.e., that 
part of Canada lying within the Mississippi Valley flyway, was 
not curtailed as an aftermath of overshooting in the States, 
probably for the very reason that the kill of Canada geese by 
white hunters in southern Ontario has always been negligible. 
In northern Ontario, however, in the District of Patricia, the 
Cree Indians trapping within 150 miles of the coasts of James 
and Hudson Bay have apparently always made a fairly sizeable 
kill of Canada geese. 

In 1947, an effort was made to ascertain the kill 
made by the Indians that hunt and trap over the breeding grounds 
of the Mississippi Valley flock, fig, 1. A majority of the 
trappers were contacted by personal interview. From the data 
obtained, an estimate of the kill at that time was made, table 1. 
Thus when the flyway population was approximately 54,600 birds, 
the spring kill by the Indians trapping the breeding grounds 
was calculated to be about 4,600 geese, or about $.5 per cent 
of the flight leaving the States. 

Since 1947, the Flyway population has increased by 
about 4»# times. The January 1954 inventory indicated a population 
of 160,000 wintering in southern Illinois alone. Consequently 
it became a matter of considerable interest to determine the 
Indian kill in the fall of 1953 and the spring of 1954 in the 
light of the increased population of geese. Had the Indian kill 
increased in proportion to the increase in the numbers of geese 
reaching the breeding grounds - or, its corollary, were the 
Indians benefiting by the increased supply of geese? Opportunity 



•^Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana, 

o 

Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Sioux Lookout. 



- 21 - 

to obtain data to answer these questions was offered the writers 
by the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests. To the officials 
of this agency, Hanson, the "outsider" of this report, is most 
appreciative. 

Itinerary, June 1954 Trip 

The following posts in northern Ontario were visited 
jointly by the writers: 

Round Lake June 12 

Bearskin Lake June 12-15 

Big Trout Lake June 15 

Kasabonica June 16 

Sachigo Lake June 17 

Ft. Severn June 13-19 

Weenusk June 19 

Sutton Lake June 19-20 

Landsdowne June 20 

Ft. Hope June 20-22 

In addition to these posts, data were obtained by Messrs. 
Campbell Currie and Thomas Batchelor from the posts of; 

Little Grand Rapids 

Island Lake 

Shamattawa 

Osnaburgh 

Pickle Lake 

Big Beaver House 

Results 

Kill data were obtained in 1954 by means of personal 
interview from about 71 per cent of the trapper population 
residing in the band areas visited. In figure 2, the location 
of the various band trapping areas, their size in square miles, 
and the number of trappers therein are shown. The average, 
extreme, and calculated kills made by the various bands of 
Indians interviewed, are summarized in table 2. 

A previous analysis of band recoveries from northern 
Ontario, fig. I (Hanson and Smith, 111. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 
Vol. 25, Art. 3, 1950), indicated that 90$ of the kill by the 
Indians of northern Ontario was made in the spring. The 1954 
interview data essentially confirm this conclusion. 

In 1947, data were obtained only from the coastal posts. 
The 1954 survey was of particular value as it afforded an 
opportunity to secure data from inland post areas which were not 
previously sampled. The posts of Ft. Albany and Attawapiskat 
were not visited in 1954; data for these posts will be forth- 
coming, but estimates for these posts can be interpolated from 
existing data for use here. 



- 22 - 



Discussion and Conclusions 



The chief weakness of the 1947 estimate is that the 
kill for the inland posts (400-700 annually) was essentially a 
calculated guess based on band recoveries. The present data 
indicate that this estimate was low, perhaps chiefly because a 
concerted effort had not been made in earlier years to collect 
band recovery data from the "inland Indians 1 '. The 1954 data 
indicate a kill of 2-2500 geese by Indians trapping south and 
west of the muskeg breeding grounds. Perhaps unusual spring 
weather conditions may have resulted in a larger kill than usual. 
Indians both at Landsdowne House and Ft. Hope reported to the 
writers that the geese were driven back south twice by snow 
storms and cold before making their final northward migration. 
These reports imply that the geese made five migrational flights 
over the above sectors, which, if true, provided these Indians 
with at least three times the normal goose hunting opportunities, 
the assumption being made that the two southward retreats, made 
by storm driven geese under "forced draft", provided little 
hunting. Of further interest, Indians at almost all the posts 
reported seeing more geese this past spring than within recent 
memory. 

Perhaps the most unexpected findings were from Weenusk 
and Ft. Severn. Despite the large increase in geese in 1954 over 
1947, the average spring kill per Indian in 1954 was not greatly 
different from the 1947 kill. (Ft. Severn 15.9 vs. 17-0; 
"Weenusk 21.3 vs. 19. 0; tables 1 and 2). The 1947 
kill estimates for these posts are conservative as they are based 
on spring kill data only, the fall kill being considered negligible 
at that time. The 1954 data indicate that the fall kill at these 
two coastal posts is about 20% of the total annual kill. If the 
1946 fall kills for these posts are assumed to have constituted 
20 per cent of the annual kill, the total annual average kill 
per Indian in 1946-47 can be computed and the average annual kill 
for 1953-54 and 1946-47 seasons compared? Ft, Severn? 19.5 
vs. 23. 8° Weenusk? 26,8 vs. 21.3. 

Band recoveries have indicated the main east and west 
range of the Mississippi Valley Flyway geese in Ontario can be 
most satisfactorily described as including that sector of the 
Province lying between 81° and 92° Longitude. Making allowance 
for areas within this range not sampled, the total kill of 
Mississippi Valley Flyway geese in Ontario is calculated to be 
around 8,400 birds. Whatever deficiencies our findings may 
possess, the data presented in table 2 constitute probably the 
most accurate appraisal that has been made of a waterfowl kill 
by the natives of a wilderness area. Considering the fact that 
data on the kill by the Indians of the inland posts were not 
available for the 1947 study, it would appear that despite a 
great increase in the numbers of Canada geese available to them, 
the Indians did not appreciably increase their kill in 1954. 

What explanation can be given to the apparent stability 
of the Indian kill? The only reasoning that can be given at 
present is as follows? The earlier flights of geese arrive in 



- 23 - 

the north while the rivers and lakes are still frozen, probably 
following the rivers as flight lanes to a great extent. The 
Indians camped near the rivers and lakes, awaiting the breakup, 
hunt the geese from blinds set out on the river ice and probably 
thereby intercept the major flights. However, the geese are 
available to the Indians only between the time of arrival and 
the first break-up of the interior lakes. (This shift by water- 
fowl from the rivers to the "interior" at the onset of the first 
thaw was observed in the Perry River area of the Arctic.) Hence, 
it would seem that time is the underlying element in controlling 
the Indian kill; that even when the goose population is fairly 
low, an Indian can obtain all the geese in a day*s hunting that 
his ability and efficiency will permit. It has been difficult 
to accept this theory, but it is the only explanation that can 
be advanced at this time. 

The numbers of square miles available to the Indian 
hunter and the annual kill per band relative to the size of the 
trapping area, varies considerably. Yet, when the number of 
square miles per trapper and the number of square miles per goose 
killed per band trapping area were computed, no consistent 
relationship could be discerned between these data and the kill 
per hunter or the annual kill per band area. For these reasons, 
the average kill per trapper is believed to best indicate the 
relative availability of geese to the hunter, and hence, to offer 
a fairly adequate base for deducing the main migration paths of 
Canada geese through western Ontario. Thus the data in table 2 
indicate that the heaviest flights of geese (exclusive of the 
actual breeding grounds) pass over the Ft. Hope, Landsdowne and 
Kasabonica band areas? west of these areas the frequency of 
migrating flocks gradually decreases. The Ft. Hope - Kasabonica 
flight route, which extends directly northward, is probably used 
by the bulk of the geese that nest in the vicinity of big bend 
of the Weenusk River, one of the more important muskeg production 
centers for geese. 

Trapper kill data may not only indicate availability 
in terms of geese passing over a region, but may also be indicative 
of locally important stop-over areas where geese are more easily 
shot. Thus, this factor is also believed to explain the 
relatively high kill of migrant geese in two of the above band 
areas. Because the kill of geese is particularly large in the 
vicinity of Attawapiskat, Mameiguess, Kanuchuan, Winisk and 
Shibogama Lakes, they are believed to be particularly attractive 
to migrating geese. Although all of these lakes would be partly 
ice covered at the time of migration, their highly dendritic 
conformation and numerous islands would offer greater shelter 
from the wind than the large open lakes to the west. They 
possibly also open earlier than lakes which offer an uninterrupted 
expanse. 






... 



• ' .- 



■ 



' 



. 



■ • 



■ ■ . ■ 



i : 



■ 



- 24 - 

TABLE I - Number of Cree Indian hunters, average bag per hunter, 

and total calculated bag of Canada geese by native hunters 
residing in the breeding range of the Mississippi Valley 
goose population, 1946 and 1947 • 



Fur Trade Post and 

Indian Trapping 
Territory 



Ogoki 

Fort Albany (inclu- 
ding Kapiskau and 
Ghost River out- 
posts) . 



Total 
Number 

of 
Hunters 



16 



100 



Number of 

Hunters 
Interviewed 



Average Bag 

Per Hunter 

Interviewed 



1946 1947 1946 1947 



16 



24 



16 



67 



3.0 



3.6 



9.5 11.1 



Calculated 
Bag Per 
Trapping 

Territory 

1946 1947 
43 56 



950 1110 



Attawapiskat- 1 
( including Lake 
River outpost and 
Akimiski Island) 


134 


23 


31 


13.3 


15.6 


1732 


2090 


Weenusk 


33 


- 


31 


15. 2 


19.0 


495 


627 


Fort Severn 


47 


26 


26 


14.0 


17.0 


658 


799 


TOTAL 


330 


94 


171 


65.O 


66.3 


3933 


4632 


AVERAGE 


M 


- 


_ 


13.0 


13.1 


■a 


_ 



1 - The bag at Attawapiskat in 1943 was 1,720 according to Dr. John 
Honigman, resident anthropologist at the post that year 
(personal communication). 



2 - An estimate, based on data for later year. 



- 25 - 



TABLE II - Number of Indian trappers, average kill per trapper and 
calculated kills by band trapping areas* 



Band Area 



Ft. Severn 
Weenusk 
(Sutton Lake) 
Shamattawa 
Bearskin 
Big Trout L. 
Kasabonica 
Sachigo 
Round Lake 
Big Beaverhouse 
Landsdowne 
Pickle Lake 
Ft. Hope 
Osnaburgh 
Island Lakel 
L. Grand Rapids^ 
Attawapiskat 2 
Ft. Albany 2 
Qgoki 

Other flyway 
areas 



Trappers 



No. In Inter- Per 
Band viewed Cent 



Total 
Calcu- 
lated 
Average Kill per Trapper Kill 

Fall Spring Annual 
1953 1954 ( y 53- y 54) 



37 


37 


100.0 


3.6 


15.9 


^j. a 


22 


53.7 


5.0 


21.3 


(6f)3 


(6)3 


100.0 


15.7 


20.0 


19 


14 


73.7 


0.0 


1.1 


44 


35 


79.5 


9 


1.0 


79 


60 


75.9 


? 


1.7 


33 


23 


69.7 


2.1 


3.6 


46 


14 


30.4 


0.0 


2.0 


50 1 


36 


72.0 


? 


1.7 


52 


41 


73.8 


o.o 


1.4 


106 


77 


72.6 


1.2 


4.3 


65 


32 


49.2 


0.0 


3.3 


29 


23 


79.3 


0.3 


5.3 


SI 


69 


35.2 


0.0 


2.5 


(36) 


(73) 


34.9 


0.0 


0,4 


(34) 


(11) 


32.4 


0,0 


0,0 


134 + 


- 


- 


- 


- 


100* 


- 


_ 


— 


_ 


16 


m. 


_ 


m. 


_ 



19.5 
26.3 

35.7 
1.1 
1.0* 
1.7* 

5.7 

2.0 

1.7* 

1.4 

5.5 

3.3 

5.6 

2.5 

0.4 

0.0 



TOTAL 



932 



433 



722 
1161 
(214)3 

15 
504 

150 + 

133 
92 
35t 
73 

533 

247 

163 

224 



2926 2 

1144 2 
60 2 

500 

3333 



1 _ 

2 . 

3 



Band areas considered to be west of the normal migration routes 
of the Mississippi Valley Canada geese 5 data therefore not 
included in totals. 

Annual kill estimates interpolated from 1947 and 1954 data for 
Ft. Severn and Weenusk. 



- Totals are presumably included in Attawapiskat data. 



- 26 - 



FIGURE I - Location of production centers, limits of the main 
range of the Mississippi Valley geese, and located 
recoveries in Canada, 1941-1947, of Canada geese 
banded at the Horseshoe Lake Game Refuge, Within 
the main breeding range 217 band recoveries have been 
made, (Not shown are one recovery from Warren, Manitoba, 
and one fro m McLea n, Saskatchewan.) 




r J 7 



HUDSON 



bay 



Vs 



\m g 



r^' 4 





90 

Scale of Miles 
60 P 60 320 H) 240 



- 2? - 



FIGURE II - Map showing limits of 

band trapping areas, square / 
miles and number of 
Indi a n tr appers per area 





MANITOBA 

Shama- / 
ttawa / 

,300 *,' 

19 
v s ^ ^ N Bearskin 

6,700 / 

I Sachigo\ ' 

44 ^ Big Trout > . 
Island I 4 , 900 \^/ 

Lake I 

4,400 \ y° 

Sandy Lake / \ Big Beaver- , 
/ y \ house j 




7,200 



/Kasa- \ 
» bonica * _ 
/ 2,300,, ' " 



fe» 

oj « Deer Lake 



5,300 



-d-d ""• 



2,200 



\ 



Round Lake 
5,500 



N 



4,000 



Lansdowne 



/ 



47 i * 

J: - - » 8,700 



I 



"N J^ 

s ^ -" 



• \ 



/ 



\ 



V 

Pickle Lake 

6,100 



106 




N 

•• 



V I / 
ho ' Pikangikum / Cat Lake / 
Igo/ /^ ^ x 65 „ f Fort Hope 

l3jL-—'\ \ /' ^,' /. 3 ' 9 °V 

t v ^ / Osnaburgh *"*<* , ' 

1 6,100 J^-C \ 



Ogoki 
13,100 



> w J 



v - -. 3,900 / Lac [ 

I -J ,/Seul *--- 



N, .'UCU1 *— 1 "v. (J 

^ 3,400 / 

^ Sioux | 



d l 



s 



> Auden I 

j 



V 



\ Grassy , 

\ 2,500 v ' 1, ' iUU 



/ Nakina \ 
\ Savant-Armstrong / 2,900 . \ 

5,000 72 . . j , ,,, 25 ' 



4,132 



Patricia West Patricia Central 

Band Trapping Areas - Northwestern Ontario 



- 28 - 



FIGURE III - Time of kill of Canada geese by Indians on the 
breeding grounds, as shown by recovery records, 
1941-1947* of geese banded at the Horseshoe 
Lake Game Refuge. 



CO 
CD 
•H 
U 
CD 
> 
O 

o 

CD 
04 

cm 

o 

u 

CD 

£> 

I 



_- 


















.. 














• 


^'-~. 


























50- 




. ^.~~>~: 








: \ •■ 








■■-- ". 


■.._.:..:_.: -^ ! 














40- 






















-_ _....-- 








30- 


- 












"TT 






20- 




' 








. '_"' ; 










: : • 




















*.;v^r 


; 








: ■'•:. ."- 


"_~7!-T 




















_^? 






10- 












. 


















■-'■■ 






__ ^- -;■ <■ 






. 




1^5 _~-^fe 




_ '. j»a i_* - '*-■ 






.... ... ____<■ ■ |,- *•-__.. t ~_f j ->'- - 


„___*<*_ 











1 1 







Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. 



Month of Recovery 



- 29 



FIGURE IV - Spring kill of Canada geese expressed as per cent 
of t he total annua l kill per band are a. 



HUDSON BAY 



MANITOBA 





Shama- / 

ttawa 4 



Bearskin 



/^---* 



_/ 



/ 



S 



\ 



I Sandy Lake 



•a i Deer Lake ^ x 

G X _ 






s \ 

y Big Trout v 
\ Sachigo\ ,' / ^ 

100.0 I ' / \ 

I /Kasa- 

v v I _ — ^ ' bonica ^^ 

/ n ;-- ' *-^ 63.2X 

/ \ Beaverhouse ' 

I Round Lake \ 100.0 I / 

i ,r' J f 

? /** < j 

% . V \ Lansdowne i 

/ Pickle Lake \ ' 



0) v .. 

•p tfli Pikangikum ' Cat Lake 

S^/ '. ioo.o 



Ogoki 






V 



/ 



/ 






Red Lake j 



< 



Osnaburgh 
100.0 



/ Fort Hope i 
U 94.6 



J-C 



\ 



■^ — 



Lac Seul / \ 
\ Grassy - ^ J Savant-Armstrong / / Nakina \ v 



x Auden 



I 
I 



^m^HHH^+^ 



I M l 111 



fffH 



C. N. R. Line 



Patricia West Patricia Central 

Band Trapping Areas - Northwestern Ontario 



- 30 - 

WATERFOWL SURVEY IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO, 1950. 

by 

Lester W, Gray 



Introduction 

The primary objective of this survey by the Department of 
Lands and Forests was to locate a suitable area to set up a banding 
station. No attempt was made to run a complete census, or to take 
representative samples, and the survey was made by one man working 
alone. Two regions were picked, and the water within these areas 
intensively studied to locate breeding concentrations. It was felt 
that the places used by comparatively large numbers of breeding 
birds would also be used by the fall flights, as good waterfowl 
habitat in this part of the province is limited. 

Location of Areas 

The areas covered by the study were the District of 
Thunder Ray, and the District of Rainy River. 

Ten water areas were examined in the Thunder Bay District, 
from Cranberry Bay on Lake Superior at the eastern extreme to 
Whitefish Lake on the west. About 200 miles of aerial reconnais- 
sance was also flown. Of all areas examined only Whitefish Lake 
was found to be favourable waterfowl habitat, and this was the only 
place where breeding birds were found in numbers. Most of the 
lakes were barren of marsh, and rimmed by rocky or wooded shore- 
line. It was thought unwise to attempt banding on Whitefish Lake 
as it was a favourite shooting spot for gunners from Port Arthur 
and Fort William. In fact, the only place for many miles where 
duck shooting could be done. 

In the District of Rainy River two areas were examined. 
One consisting of part of the shoreline of Caliper Lake and its 
tributary Log River, and the other a series of artificial ponds on 
the private game reserve of Mr. J. A. Mathieu. The former area 
lies on the Kenora - Fort Frances highway, about four miles south 
of Nestor Falls. The latter, on the Rainy River, about twelve 
miles west of Fort Frances. 

The better areas were checked, either by shoreline 
cruising in a canoe, or by walking. Reconnaissance work was done 
by jeep and aircraft. 

Weather and Water Conditions 

The spring and early summer was cold and wet, and 
rivers and lakes were badly flooded. Rainy River was well above 
normal as late as the middle of July. Conditions were thus far 
from ideal for breeding waterfowl. 



I 

rH 
I 



H 
CTJ 
> 
•H 

t 

CO 

XJ 
O 

o 

m 
xj 

CTJ 

CO 

CO 
CD 

o 

o 

CO 

w 

•H 

8 



H 
M 



CO 
CO 

ctJ 

rH 
O 



M 

CO 
CO 
CT5 
rH 
O 



H 

CO 
CO 
CTJ 
rH 
O 



CO T5 


MO 


rt o 


■H JL, 


HPQ 


J* 


O Jh 


pJ CD 


O Ah 



CO 


TJ 


O 


• O 


o Jh 


S PQ 



CO XJ 


bDO 


fl 


O 


•H 


$H 


H PQ 


v; 








O 


fn 


3 


<D 


O Oh 



CO 


73 


o 


• O 


O Sh 


P3 PQ 



CO XJ 

boo 
£ o 

•H Jh 

pq 



^4 
o 



Q Ph 



CO 
XJ 
O 

• o 
o u 

S PQ 



I I I I I 



I I I 



I I I I I 



t I I 



I I I I I 



I I I 



I I I I I 



I I 1 



O >AO o o 

O • • G • 

to O-tO O s tO 



LTNO O 
• o • 



(MCVHHCM 



C\2 



CV 



O CM o 

• • • 
uavOvO 



CM -*H 



t>-o m 
• • • 



o~\0-cn 



LTMO O 
• o • 

-4-vO O 
H 



CN2 Oi 









CD 




CD 










>> 




>> 










CO TJ 


CD XJ 


XJ 








1 


CD 


t CO 


CO 


CO 






fl 


•H 


C H-H 


H -H 


CD 




^ 


CD cv, 


CD CTJ Ch 


Rj«H 


•H 




O XJ 


•H 


XJ CO -H 


CO -H 


CJ 


XJ 


Q) rH 


P 


h e-i +3 


XJ FH P 


Q) 


Jh 


CO C 


O 


a 


o c 


rH C 


P- 


CTJ^ 


o 


CD 


O • CD 


crj • co 


CO 


H 


o hlj 




XJ 


^XJ 


H ^ xJ 




rH 


cu a 


a 


•H 


o -H 


H -H 




cU H-H 


a 


c 


s • c 


CTJ • C 




S pqp=;<c; pr> 


< PQP3 


s ra t=> 






CD 






1 








M 














CTJ 






CO 


2 






(J 






■AS 

CTJ 


CD 
•H 


ctJ 




XI 






hJ J-i 


4h 


CO 




CO 






CO 


-p 


Jh 




•H 






rH > 


CTJ CD 


< 




CD 
P 
•H 






Calipe 
Log Ri 


J, A. M 

Reserv 



XJ 






o 






o 


>> 




UX 




X 


C 




CO 


CO 




$*>M 




CO 


CTJ 




1 


P 




c 






CO cv 




XJ 






H 


bO 




o 


fl 




o 


•H 
•H 




a 


crj 




c 


S 




o 


CO 




•H 


?H 




P 






CTJ 


CO 




> 


.C 




Sh 


p 




CD 






CO <H 




,0 


o 




o 


CD 




?H 


C 




CD O 




XJ 






fl 






PJ 


• 




CO 


CTJ 




H XJ 




•H 






X 


CD 




* 


a? 




CO 


CO 




^J 






•H 


CD 




CUS 






p 




>* 






rO^ 






CD 


• 


vO 


p 


CI 




•H 


o 


O 


CO 


•H 


P 


•H 


-P 




> 


CtJ 


XJ 


CO 


> 


CD 


rW 


& 


o 




CD 


pj 


c 


m 


XJ 


CO X 


CO X 


o 


u 


* 


h 


XJ o 


a) 


o 




XJ 


o 


>>z 


Ur- 


pj 


X 


C 






o 


a) 


X 




H 


O XJ 


•H 


co 


CTJ X 


a 


X 


5 


i 






bflO CO 


Eh 




lyj 


•H 0- 


^H 


Pel 


O Oh 



w 



- 32 - 



Predation by Northern Pike on diving duck broods in 
Whitefish Lake is thought to be extremely high. Blacks and Mallards 
appear to fare better, due to the fact that they remain in the 
thick, weedy cover along the shore and seldom venture out on the 
open water where the other species were commonly found. They were 
thus relatively inaccessible to the predatory fish. 

The Caliper Lake area was cruised only once, so little 
information was obtained regarding brood survival. 

On the J. A. Mathieu section, brood survival appeared to 
be excellent. No large fish were present in these waters. 

vSpecies Composition of the Breeding Population 



Area 



Whitefish Lake 



Species 



Blacks 
Mallard 
Lesser Scaup 
Am. Golden-eye 
Ring-neck 
B. W. Teal 



Total Population Percent 



73 
62 

41 
3 
2 
2 



41 

33 

22 

2 

1 

1 



Caliper Lake 
Log River 



Am. Golden-eye 

Lesser Scaup 

Ring-neck 

Canvas-back 

Mallard 

B. ¥. Teal 



23 
11 
1 
1 
1 
1 



62 
30 
2 
2 
2 
2 



Mathieu 
Reserve * 



Mallard 
B. W. Teal 
Pintail 



17 

15 

4 



47 
42 
11 



k Most of the birds tallied on this area were 
females with broods. 



Ban ding Operations 

Traps were operated on the Mathieu Reserve from August 22 
until October 7. The following birds were banded? Mallard - 193 > 
Blacks - 14, 3. W. Teal - 4, G. W. Teal - 9, Pintail - 1, Baldpate - 1 
Fied-billed Grebe - 1. 



Some birds were lost due to predation by Horned Owls, 
Three of these were caught. There was also some evidence to point to 
the Marsh Hawk as a predator on ducks in this area. 



- 33 - 

Conclusions 

Although this part of the province is not considered a 
good duck producer at best, it is felt that this year was below 
average. It is also felt that the extremely wet weather and large 
amount of water available had an adverse effect on trapping, by 
allowing the birds to scatter over a wider area. Thus the density 
of birds in the trapping area was less than normal. 



- 34 - 



WATERFOWL SHOOTING AROUND A SMALL SANCTUARY 

by 

D. N. Neill 



Location 

Lot 10, Concession I, Yarmouth Township, Elgin County- 
known as the Jones Sanctuary at Dexter. 

Description 

This sanctuary comprises a "long" hundred acre farm 
extending from the north shore of Lake Erie north to the first 
concession road. A small pond, surrounded by trees and shrubs is 
situated at the north end of the farm, adjacent to the farm buildings 
Waterfowl are fed in a near-by field. At the peak of migration 
approximately 2,000 geese and several hundred ducks find refuge 
on the farm. A banding program was carried on for a number of years. 
Twenty to twenty-five geese and several species of ducks raise 
broods each summer. The Department of Lands and Forests reimburses 
the farmer for some of the cost of the supplied food - corn-on-the- 
cob. 

No shooting is permitted within one-half mile of the 
sanctuary. 

Flight Pattern of the Birds 

Almost without exception flight to and from the feeding 
ground is over the centre of the protected area, directly to the 
lake. Occasionally, the birds are startled over the water and 
return to land in disorder, outside the sanctuary area. This puts 
them within range of the hunters, who are usually concentrated at 
the top of the steep bank of the lake at the edge of the refuge, 
during early morning or late evening. 

Were it not for poor marksmanship, the bag would be much 
greater. The element of surprise and confusion apparently affects 
both birds and hunters alike. 

The following statistics are the results of the shooting 
during the 1955 open season: 

Statistics based on checking hunters at the Jones 
Sanctuary for 30 days during the open season 1955 • 

1st check Oct. 3, last Dec. 14th 

Possible hunting days - Oct. 1 to Dec. 15 ••<» 65 

Number of days hunters were checked 

(46% of possible hunting days) „... 30 

Total Number of hunters (in 30 days) 515 



- 35 - 



o o e o . e e 



OOOOOCSO 



• 00900*0 



Average number of hunters per day (for 30 days) 

Total hours hunted (30 days) 

Average hours hunted per day 

Number of Geese shot • e , 

Number of Ducks shot, Mallard 

Number of Ducks shot, Black 

Total Birds (Approx. 2 birds/day 

Hunting time per hunter (30 days 

Birds/hunter (30 days) o . • «. 

Birds per hunter hour (30 days) 

No. of days with no birds shot , 

Maximum bag - Nov. 9-24 hunters in 6 man hours 

Mallards .... 

Blacks 



O • • • o 



o o o « 



o e . o o o • 



oeeoooo. 



o o e • 



ooeoooooo. 



o • o • • 



Canada Geese 
Total 



0000*00 



Birds/hour . , 
Birds/hunter 



o o o • 

27 

10 



• • O 



shot 



o • o a 



o • o • 

0000 



o o 
o • 



• o 
o o 



17 

136 

4.5 

25 

37 

62 

16 min. 

0.12 

O.46 
16 

3 
3 
3 

9 birds 

1.5 

.33 



- 36 - 

WATERFOWL CAUGHT IN MUSKRAT TRAPS, 

KEMPTVILLE DISTRICT, 1955 - 1956 

by 
G. C. Myers and J. B. Dawson 



Trapper questionnaires for 1955 and 1956 were analysed 
and the following data summarized by Conservation Officer Patrol 
Areas and totalled for the District, 

1. Total number of trappers (including residents and farmers) 

2. Number of questionnaires completed. 

3. Percent of completed questionnaires returned, 

4. Total number of ducks caught. 

5. Number of muskrats caught (from completed returns). 

6. Muskrats per duck caught. 

7. Number of ducks caught, by species. 

Since it is thought that many birds die after release 
from traps, data concerning birds killed and those released were 
not used in this report. 



19 5 5 









No. of 


No, of 




Patrol No. of 


Forms 


% 


Ducks 


Muskrats 


Muskrats 


Area Trappers 


Completed 


Return 


Caught 


Caught 


Per Duck 


1 109 


79 


72 


39 


5,509 


141 


2 123 


45 


36 X 


14 


2,661 


190 


3 91 


31 


34 * 


6 


1,745 


291 


4 111 


50 


45 


43 


4,686 


109 


5 91 


65 


71 


66 


4,313 


65 


6 125 


121 


96 


114 


7,029 


61 


7 151 


98 


64 


157 


6,121 


39 


8 243 


156 


62 


323 


12,689 


39 


9 251 


204 


81 


311 


13,205 


42 


District 












Total 1,300 


849 


70 (ave.) 


1,073 


57,958 


108 (ave.) 



Indicates low return from French-speaking areas. 



- 37 - 



^ 



-cf OvO vO CNtO CM CM vO 

• •••••••a 

CMTNt^U-N rH -3" "-<A O O 

-4"CM O O 

rH rH 



CMt>-tO\0 CM -4" O f>- 
u^cM O 



-4-OCM»rHvOH I C\ 
CMtO CM CM H(V 



totocNONCMCMrncMNO 

VOOH rH 

rH rH 



cn-±OvO I I CM ! CM 
I>--4-rH CM 



0\cncn^t I C"\nO I vO 
vOHrH 



O u-\ u-\ o I I CM I u-\ 
CNrH 



rHCMtO CM I I I I O 
CM rH 



vO 



I I I I I I I I 



o 

■ 

H O 
rH <r\ 



C"\ O 
CM Cn 
<n 



MD 



t>- 


-4- 


UN 


H 


rH 






O 




e 


-c? 


o 


rH 


rH 


rH 





CM 



O 

o 

en -4- 



vO 



-4-rHrHCM I I I |vO 4 

H 



n0 



<n 



Cn 



vOnO en I I I I | -d- On en 
CM en 



(D 

CD -H 

,* ^ >> <H 

O CD CD -H 

3x) W I X5 P 

xs Sh c ci cd c 

^ Cd CT3 CD a CD CD 

O -d rH hO'd ^H£T) 

dOrH^HcrJcd'd-H 

rHOcdCDOOCD(D£ 



H 

cd 
-p 
o 



CD 

o 

u 

CD 

a, 





CO^ 


-P o 


cd 


U Q 


^ 


CO £h 


3 CD 


§&H 


CO 


-p 


Cd 


h 


J*d 


CO 


3 




f^H 


c+h P 


O rC 


hi 


• 3 


O cij 


s u 


CO 


M 


o 


3 


Q 


Ch -p 


ox: 


bC 


• 3 


o cd 


s o 


p 


c a 


CD S-. 


o 3 


^ p 


CD CD 


p* cc; 


TJ 


CD 


P 


CD 


CO rH 


S P 


U S 


o o 


fc o 


CO 


h 


<H CD 


O P- 


Q. 


• cd 


O k 


S Eh 


vC 






H 


ir\ 


o cd 




Jh 0) 


0> 


P Jh 




cd< 


rH 


Oh 



U-n-OO to -eh 0-\0 O H -4" 

Or-KOtO Lr\LO,rH CN-d/ 
rH rH 



O H CM to rH o^vO vO O 
vOvOrHvOOCMOO-rH 
vOvQ totOvO 0-4--4-i-r\ 



•V Cv CN «"s 



-chrH cnrH <n CM vO I>- 



ON-chCMrHOO-OOvOO 

■4HHWOJ!SN0 1> 

rH CM rH 



* Mi 

MD t^N-4^0 O-nO O 

o^cncntotQ o -3" to to 



rH -4" <n rH OnvO rH vQ O 
0-4-rr\ONtr>0--3-t>0 
H H CM 



•^n H On to O -4-vO en en 
O C^-OD O vO to to O CM 
rH H rH CM CM 



rH CM C^-4-i-^<0 O-tX) ON 



CD 

% 



-J- 



O 

o 

OA 





CO 




cd 




CD 




u 




cd 




fctO 


ON 


JH 


ON 


•H 


vO 


^ 




cd 




(D 




P. 




CO 




1 


' * 


X 


• 


o 


CD 


0) 


cd 


u 


•«*— ^ 


^ 


CM 


s 


C^ 


o 




?H 




<H 




C! 




?H 


rH 
CM 


P 

CD 


to 


u 




►> 




f> 




O 




rH 




CO 




CD 


to 


+3 

cd 


ON 


o 


o 


•H 


rH 


■d 




H 


p 




OH 


* 


•H Cd 


fc P 




P O 




CO Eh 




•H 




Q 





^ 



vO-^-CVU-Nr^rHCVCVH 



-4CN2 



Oi -4 



O 
rH 



O 
O 



O 

o 



cd 

-p 
o 

Eh 



C>H-4-vO(MiAOHH On 

HI>--4^}- r-\ <T\ [>■ ON 

PAH VO 



ON 



PA 

e 
UA-CO C^CV rH OrH I l>~ O -4 

H 



«0 



utn 

• 

"CO "00 "CO t>- H PAMD I m ^ On 

rH -4 H O C\J 

H cv 



o- 



CV 



lAUMAtO I OAH I H -CO tO 
LfNUA OJ H 



vO 



^liAnOCM I IOHW O O 
OJ H H O H 



-co 

PA 



ur\ 



OJ 



O^On4 I IH ICM On -4 
H CM 



-4 



O 



-4H H PA I MM H PA 
H Cv2 



pn. 



C\2 I I I I I I I I C\2 



£> 





CV 


vO C2 -4 


1 


1 


1 1 1 


CA2 


-4- 


o 

• 

CN2 


<u 














H 




w 
















o 




H 


u-nc\J 1 

H 


1 


1 


1 H 1 


H 
CA 

t3 


-4 


■ 


hH 








CD 




CD 
•H 






o 




M 


h 


>» 




cm 










o 


CD 


CD 




•H 




+3 


cti 




2 TJ 


CO 


1 


T3 -p 




c 






T5 £h 


d 


C 


cd 


c 




CD 


tH 




^ 03 


cd 


CD 


P-, CD 


CD 


rH 


O 






O T3 rH 


hQTJ 


3 rHrCC 


cd 




<u 




cd O H 


Sh h 


cd cd tJ 


•H 


-p 


SU 






HOiC 


CD 


O 


O CD CD 


a 


o 


CD 


Ph 




PQ ^2 


SOCOBtfD 


€H 


Oh 



- 39 - 

Trappers returning completed questionnaires caught a 
total of 1,073 ducks in 1955 and 699 in 1956. 

If those returning questionnaires constitute a good 
sample of all district trappers , then the above totals can be 
corrected, for all trappers, to read 1,536 and 970 for 1955 and 
1956, respectively. 

The sizeable difference in total ducks caught and in 
muskrats per duck caught between the two years is thought to be 
caused by the very poor trapping conditions prevailing in 1956. 

Except for the above differences, data for the two years 
show a striking similarity. 

The above tables indicate that; 

- Questionnaires were completed by 70% of all trappers in 1955 
and by 72% in 1956. 

- Muskrats caught by trappers returning completed questionnaires 
represented 73% of all muskrats caught in 1955 and 71% in 1956. 

- Black Ducks and Wood Ducks constituted over 70% of all ducks 
caught each year. 

- The percentage of each species caught varied very little from 
year to year. 

- The percentage of ducks caught in each patrol area also varied 
very little from year to year. 

The attached map shows the percentage distribution of 
ducks caught in the various patrol areas. It can be seen that 
the greatest number of ducks are caught in the western part of the 
district. Ducks caught in patrol areas 6-9 constituted 84% of 
all ducks caught in 1955 and 82% in 1956. This percentage distri- 
bution agrees very closely with the percentage of muskrats taken 
in each patrol area and is directly correlated with the amount of 
aquatic habitat available. 

Trappers in patrol areas 2 and 3 are predominately 
French-speaking and the return of completed trapper questionnaires 
was very poor from these areas. 

To improve this situation, questionnaires in French 
may be distributed to these trappers in the future. 



- 40 - 

KEMPTVILLE DISTRICT 
Waterfowl Caught, in Muskrat Traps, 1955 and 195&. 




l.Oj 
1.0 



Patrol Area Number 
fo of ducks - 1955. 
% all ducks - 1956 



\y 



;iap shews percent of total ducks caught by patrol areas, 
1955 and 1956. 






- 41 - 

LUTHER MARSH GAME BAG CENSUS REPORT 

OCTOBER 6TH., 1956, 

by 
J. F. Gage 



Luther Marsh is situated on the county line between the 
Counties of Wellington and Dufferin in West and East Luther 
Townships. The area was purchased by the Grand River Commission. 
The swamp was created when a flood control dam was constructed 
providing some three thousand (3,000) acres of inundated swamp 
land. Its main purpose is to control floods* The use of this 
area by ducks has probably given the project more publicity than 
has flood control. Each year, particularly on opening day, 
hundreds of hunters flock to the Luther Marsh, as it is popularly 
known, to participate in the duck hunt. 

This year seven entry points to the marsh were estab- 
lished as checking points. Department of Lands and Forests 
personnel with eight Ontario Agricultural College students were 
present to check the duck harvest and to maintain duck hunting 
regulations. 

Special effort was made to contact each hunter before 
he entered the marsh, informing him of the legal opening and 
closing time. The time taken was very worthwhile since there 
were only five infractions of shooting before 12^00 o* clock noon. 
Five hunters were charged with violations of the hunting regula- 
tions after the evening shoot. 

A total of 5^9 hunters was checked with 613 ducks. 
Black Ducks were plentiful and accounted for 26.5$ of the total. 
Mallards were a very close second with 25.2$. These two species 
make up about half of the total. Green-winged Teal 16.3$ and 
Blue-winged Teal at 10.4$ make a strong percentage for the Teal 
family. It can be readily seen that the Blacks, Mallards and 
Teal provide the bulk of the duck harvest on opening day at the 
Luther Marsh. Their numbers account for more than 75$ of the 
total ducks shot. 

Other species provide a mixed bag of lesser importance 
but of great interest to many hunters. In order of occurrence 
in the bag they weres Pintails, Ruddy Ducks, Bluebills, Bald- 
pates, Ring-necked Ducks, Redheads, Wood Ducks, Gadwalls and 
Hooded Mergansers. One Canvas-back was checked and 35 Coots or 
Mud Hens. A great many of the latter are shot in mistake for 
ducks. They are legal game and are said to be good eating when 
properly prepared. 

Some species will make a greater contribution to the 
harvest as the weather becomes colder and migrant ducks work 
south. 



- 42 - 

Luther Marsh Game Bag Census Report, Oct. 6th., 1956. 



Species 



Black Duck 








Mallard 




53 


61 


Green-winged 


Teal 


- 


- 


Blue-winged T 


eal 


11 


15 


Pintail 




3 


10 


Ruddy Duck 




6 


4 


Bluebill 







7 


Baldpate 




4 


1 


Ring-neck 







6 


Redhead 




2 


3 


Wood Duck 







1 


Gadwall 




3 


2 


Hooded Mergan 


ser 


- 


- 


Canvas-back 




1 


- 


Coots 




- 


- 



Not Sexed 


Total 


Percent 


163 


163 


26.5 


36 


155 


25.2 


100 


100 


16.3 


33 


64 


10.4 


9 


22 


3.5 


3 


13 


2.1 


5 


12 


1.9 


5 


10 


1.6 


3 


9 


1.4 


1 


6 


.9 


4 


5 


.3 





5 


.6 


3 


3 


.4 


- 


1 


.1 


35 


35 


5.7 



613 



Hunters Checked 539 

Ducks Checked 613 

Ducks Per Hunter 1.04 

Ducks Lost 132 

Ducks Found 3 

Parties Using Dogs 17 

Parties Not Using Dogs 193 



- 43 - 
MOURNING DOVE ROAD COUNTS 

by 
L. J. Stock 



The following is a summary of the Mourning Dove 

Road Counts carried out during the month of September 1956, in the 

Lake Erie District, by members of the field staff and District Office 
personnel. 



County 






No. 


of Doves 


Seen 




Miles 


Birds/Mile 






Flo 


sks of 
















3 or More 
123 


Pairs 
34 


S: 


Ingles 
37 


Total 
194 






We 11 and 


951 


0.20 


Haldimand 






73 


22 




27 


122 


393 


0.31 


Haldimand) 




1 


,516 


IS 




42 


1,576 


881 


1.79 


Norfolk) 




















Norfolk 






37 


IS 




20 


75 


639 


0.11 


Elgin 






33 


20 




71 


124 


324 


0.38 


Elgin ) 






3 


2 




9 


14 


347 


0.04 


Middlesex) 




















Middlesex 


) 






22 




30 


52 


45 


1.16 


Caradoc Twp, 


.) 


















Elgin-Kent 






6 


4 




12 


22 


38 


0.58 


Kent (Dover Twp) 




7 


8 




12 


27 


85 


0.32 


Kent 








14 




6 


20 


47 


0.43 


Lambton 






119 


54 




12 


135 


1,044 


0.18 


Essex 






935 


188 




95 


1,218 


330 


3.69 


Totals 




2 


,352 


404 
202 


prs 


373 

• 


3,629 


5,124 


0.705 



Percent of birds in flocks - 79 

Largest Flock Norfolk County - Townsend Township - 1,000. 

Highest Count per mile - Essex - 3«69. 



- 44 - 



REPORT ON 1956 TRIP TO THE SLATE ISLANDS 

by 

H. Go Gumming 



Purpose ; To carry out the annual check on the caribou population 
of the Slate Islands. 

Members of Party , J. B. McKenzie, Conservation Officer, 

Ho Go Cumming, Biologist, 

Itinerary ; 

July 9 Travelled from Geraldton to the Slate Islands via Pays 
Plat. Set up camp opposite McCall Island near a known 
caribou crossing. 

July 10 Walked to Silver Lake and past two beaver ponds to 
Horace Cove, thence to Lawrence Bay and camp. 

July 11 Morning lost due to accident. Spent afternoon trying 
to observe caribou from canoe. 

July 12 Followed old trail to Sunday Harbour. Returned by boat. 

July 13 Unable to work due to rain. Attempted to see caribou 
along the shore from canoe. 

July 14 Walked to Mud Lake, thence to northeast corner of 

Patterson Island, back to old lumber camp on McGreevy 
Harbour, to Mud Lake again and returned to camp. 

July 15 Collected plants by old lumber camp. Walked to Silver 
Lake and back. 

July 16 Returned to Pays Plat. 

Observations of Caribou ; 

Caribou seen or heard 

July 9th, 1956 . A caribou was heard, then sighted on McCall 
Island across from camp. It walked along the shore, stopped 
several times to put its nose in the water. It turned and licked 
itself, straightened, then licked again Antlers were about 4 
inches long and in the velvet. It walked on a short distance, 
then broke into a trot through the shallow water along the shore. 
It was very dark, greyish rather than brownish. There was a faint 
white collar. 

16, 55s The caribou disappeared around a small point of the shore, 
but reappeared 30 seconds later. It walked on for a short distance, 
stopped to look across the water, walked on and paused apparently 



- 45 - 

to browse some low growing plants among the bushes along the shore. 
After browsing for perhaps 30 seconds, it walked on (east) and, 
with one more pause to look across the lake, disappeared around the 
point at 17.02 hours. 

J uly 10th, l6.30 o A caribou was sighted at the end of Lawrence Bay. 
When followed it would run only a short distance and then stop. 
It was sighted three different times before it disappeared altogether, 
After that, although we hurried forward, we could see no further 
sign of it. No antlers were visible. 

July 11th, 14.45 s A caribou swam up to shore by the camp while the 
aircraft was there and four people were sitting around talking. 
It swam with head high and rump out of the water. When it reached 
shore, about 30 feet from camp, it stood there for a short while 
shaking itself intermittently, but it left before a picture could 
be taken. It was brown with a very dark head. No antlers were 
visible. 

July 12th, 13.00 ; A caribou was heard near a small lake east of 
Sunday Harbour. It was seen by McKenzie who surprised it near the 
lake. He watched for a moment until it walked into the bush, at 
which time he went down the trail past it, and attempted to drive 
it back. He saw it once more. It was fairly light in colour. No 
antlers were seen. 

13 o 15s While we were eating lunch, a caribou came up the trail and 
went off into the bush just before reaching our position. This was 
probably the same caribou as the one just described. 

13. 3$; While proceeding toward Sunday Harbour, a caribou was 
sighted in the bush. It was dark brown with about 6 inch antlers. 
When we crouched down and made chirping noises, it turned and came 
back toward us in an attempt to discover the source of the noise. 

13«45* A caribou was seen at some distance through the trees. It 
just stood facing away from us for a moment, then wandered off paying 
no attention to our chirping. It was a lighter brown in colour and 
had antlers with forked knobs about IS inches long. This was only a 
short distance from Sunday Harbour. 

July 14th, 12.15 ; A caribou was sighted near Mud Lake. It came back 
three times when chirped at, enabling the taking of two pictures. 
It then circled and disappeared. McKenzie, who was some distance 
off, also glimpsed a caribou through the trees. It was believed to 
be the same one. 

July 15th, 13.15 : A caribou was sighted swimming toward the shore 
near camp from the direction of McCall Island. It landed on the 
shore about 50 feet east of the camp and walked straight into the 
woods. It was dark brown and no antlers were noticed. 

16.10; A caribou was heard near the trail to Silver Lake. It was 
not seen. 



- 46 - 

16.45: A caribou was heard near Silver Lake. It sounded as if it 
were knocking its antlers on trees. It was glimpsed a couple of 
times by McKenzie but no details could be discerned. 

Caribou Tracks 

July 10th, 09 » 30 S Fresh caribou tracks and droppings were seen at the 
west end of McGreevy Harbour. The animal had been heading northeast 
around the end of the bay. 

16. 3#s Caribou calf tracks were found in the sand on the east shore 
of Lawrence Bay. They were about lj inches long. 

July 12th, 14.00 s Caribou calf tracks were seen near Sunday Harbour. 

Many more adult caribou tracks were seen but not recorded. 

Caribou Remains 

July 12th, 16.00 ; A bleached jaw from a caribou that was reported 
to have fallen off a cliff in the winter or spring of 1955, and the 
carcass of a caribou which apparently fell off the same cliff a few 
feet distant in the winter or spring of 1956 were found on the south 
shore of Sunday Harbour. The cliff was a bald, rounded height, 
directly across the point from the lighthouse. The carcass of the 
second animal lay where it had landed with a rib still bent over the 
rock on which it had broken. The animal was about 25 or 30 feet from 
the base of the cliff. Although there was an over-hang of several 
feet the distance of the carcass from the base of the cliff seemed 
hard to explain. It appeared that it might have been running or had 
jumped, for the carcass was facing directly away from the cliff and 
had landed feet down. 

It was almost entirely decomposed, with only pieces of hide still 
hanging on the bones. It was related by the lighthouse keeper that 
the complete skeleton of the other animal had been there the previous 
year and that a piece of moss had been torn off the rock above where 
it had fallen over. The jaws of both animals were collected. 

17.00; Guided by the lighthouse keeper, we located another caribou 
carcass on the north shore of Sunday Harbour on a gravel beach. He 
reported that it was well up near the bush line when he had first 
seen it, but that the waves had moved it to its present position 
about two-thirds of the way toward the water. It was slightly 
more decomposed than the other carcass but was also a casualty of last 
winter. The jaw was collected and a casual examination showed that 
it was a calf. This looked very much like starvation as it was found 
on a south facing slope at the tree line where a starving animal 
would come for a little additional warmth. 

A left antler and a right antler from different animals were picked 
up by the lighthouse people and given to us. Another right antler 
was found on July 15th on the trail back from Silver Lake. These 
were all brought back to Geraldton. 



- 47 - 

Additional Information on Caribou s 

Anglers encountered during the trip were questioned concerning the 
numbers of caribou which they had seen. Some who had been coming 
to the islands for some years claimed that they were seeing 
considerably fewer caribou this year. Several other fishermen 
stated that they had been over to the islands fishing several times 
this year but had seen no caribou* These reports contrasted with the 
three observations which we made on the shore. 

Some anglers reported that they saw two caribou on the shore of 
McCall Island on July 14th while we were away from camp. These two 
were the first they had seen this year. 

Two watchmen for a log boom which was being held in McGreevy Harbour 
reported that they had seen only about one-half dozen caribou since 
they had taken up residence there in May. 

The lighthouse keeper reported that one of the children had seen five 
caribou, including one calf, near the small lake just east of Sunday 
Harbour, a few days before our arrival. He said that each fall a 
large caribou came down and ate the flowers out of their garden 
and was quite tamo. He also reported that he had found the fore* 
foot of a young one about the same size as that of the second carcass 
which we found, near the base of the lighthouse cliff. His helper 
also found a whole carcass on the east side of the lighthouse that 
he did not think had fallen off any cliff. He promised to try to 
collect the jaw and send it to us. 

Observations of Other Animals s 

Beaver ; 

July 10th, 11.18 s A mountain ash was found cut by beaver on a hill 
top. 

11.30s A double beaver dam (one just below the other) was located 
at the southwest end of a small pond in the Mud Lake chain. The 
dams, which had apparently been built last fall, were holding water 
and there were fresh cuttings on them. Some of the surrounding 
trees had been killed by the flooding. 

A short distance from the above pond was a second pond, which also 
had signs of beaver around it. No very fresh cuttings were found. 
Most of the signs were from late fall or early spring. 

July 14th, 12 o 10 s A beaver dam was found at the southwest end of 
what was believed to be Mud Lake. No mud was visible in the lake 
due to the flooding by the beaver. 

Foxs 

July 10th. 15.15 s A fox burrow was found near a small lake in the 
southwestern part of Patterson Island. Two more burrows were found 



- 43 - 

immediately afterward, one of which was probably leading to the same 
den, and the other about 50 yards away. Since there were no fresh 
tracks after the recent rain, it was impossible to tell whether or 
not they were still occupied, or how old they were, 

Snowshoe Hare s 

July 10th, 10.30 s Snowshoe hare browse on birch was found near 
Silver Lake. 

July 12th, 09.30 s Snowshoe hare was seen by an old lumber camp on 
McGreevy Harbour. 

July 15th, 14.00 s Snowshoe hare was startled from brush surrounding 
the old lumber camp on McGreevy Harbour. 

16. 00s Young snowshoe hare was captured on the trail to Silver Lake. 
It was held for pictures then released. It was just nicely able to 
hop around on its own. 

Merganser s 

July 11th, 16.00 s Merganser with 7 downy young was seen in Lawrence 
Bay. 

July 13th, 18.45 ? A small merganser was found by itself in Lawrence 
Bay. An attempt was made to catch it with the canoe, but was 
thwarted by a gull which swooped down and, after one miss, caught 
the small duck by the back of the neck and flew off with it. The 
gull landed on a small island and swallowed the duck whole. 

Many adult mergansers were seen. 

Other Birds s 

July 14th, 12.15 s Two brown creepers landed on a tree near Mud Lake. 

July 15th, 16. 15 s A young white-throated sparrow was seen on the 
trail to Silver Lake. It could fly short distances, but its tail 
was still short. There were many white-throated sparrows in evidence 
on the Slate Islands. 

Mammals Missing s 

The following is a list of the mammals which are present on the 
mainland, but for which no evidence has been found on the Slate 
Islandss moose, deer, bear, wolf, lynx, fisher, marten, otter, mink, 
weasel, skunk, porcupine, squirrel, chipmunk, muskrat, mice and 
shrews. It is hoped that this list can be reduced as more evidence 
becomes available. Ten traps were set out one night and twenty were 
set out another night around McGreevy Harbour, all in what appeared 
to be excellent small mammal habitat, with no catch of any kind. 
However, there are some small mammals present on the island for the 
lighthouse keeper reported that some were around the lighthouse 
buildings. 



'.■: 



. 



- 49 - 

Conclusions and Recommendation s; 

lo There was no marked change in the caribou populations from that 
of the past two years. Of the eleven observations of caribou 
made, not more than three could have been repeat observations, 

2. There is still caribou reproduction on the islands. Tracks of 
two calves were seen* 

3. At least four caribou died last winter. One death was caused 
by the animal falling off a cliff | one could very well be due 

to starvation, and the cause of the other two deaths is unknown. 

This is the second year that an adult caribou has been known 
to fall off a cliff in Sunday Harbour. Since it is a high, bare 
rounded rock, there is no apparent reason why the caribou should 
be up there. Also, the animal that died last winter appeared to 
have jumped or run off the cliff. Since there are no large 
predators on the islands, no explanation could be found. 

4. The ages of the jaws collected, as determined by analogy with 
deer jaws, were as follows? 

Jaw of 1955 kill 2 years 

Carcass at foot of cliff 5 years 

Carcass on gravel shore 6 months 

The age of the calf indicates that it must have died in the 
fall of 195 5 » probably in December. 

5. Both tree and ground lichens are very hard to find on the Slate 
Islands. The contrast between the plentiful supply of lichens 
observed on St. Ignace and neighboring islands the following week, 
and the very few seen on the Slate Islands was quite striking. 

It was most evident when walking through similar timber types 
on St. Ignace and on the Slates. This scarcity, together with 
the possible starvation case found, leads to the belief that the 
present population on the Slate Islands may still be above the 
winter carrying capacity. It is probable that the continuous 
utilization of the lichens by large herds has greatly reduced 
the carrying capacity of the islands over what it once was. 

6. Another example of a behaviour trait in caribou similar to that 
found in white-tailed deer was noticed. The curiosity exhibited 
by caribou when surprised in the woods and when chirped at by 

a hidden observer is practically identical with that displayed 
by white-tailed deer. Two caribou were attracted to within 
30 or 40 feet by this method. 

7* The only rodents that were found on the Slate Islands were beaver 
which had established colonies in three places. Snowshoe hares 
appeared to be increasing. 



- 50 - 

3. In the fall of 1953 a plan was put forward for moving caribou 
from the Slate Islands to Michipicoten Island. This plan was 
never carried out for the following reasons t 

1. There were too many agencies involved. Each one waited for 
somebody else to start something. 

2. The plan put forward was only a general one with not enough 
detailed solutions to the problems involved. 

3. There was no really satisfactory method suggested for 
capturing the caribou. 

4o There was the problem concerning methods of holding and 
transporting. 

5. There was a question as to whether the population of caribou 
on the Slate Islands warranted such a move. 

6. There was a problem as to the best time of year to carry 
it out . 

This year ? s investigation has led to the conclusion that 
there are still too many caribou on the Slate Islands considering 
the poor winter food supply available. At least four caribou died 
last winter without having any noticeable effect on the population. 
These facts lead to the belief that six caribou could be removed 
with no harm to the herd, and quite possibly with some good. 

Since caribou appear and behave so much like white-tailed 
deer, it is believed that six caribou could be caught without too 
much difficulty in box-type deer traps. The traps might have to be 
slightly enlarged. Caribou are not particularly "wild" animals, 
and could probably be held in small corrals. With these considerations 
in mind, the following plan is put forward. 

During the month of November when rutting is pretty well 
finished and caribou have changed to a winter diet, three box traps 
could be set up on the Slate Islands. A small corral could be built 
to hold any catches. The traps could be baited and the animals fed 
with lichens gathered earlier from good sources in other places. 
Once set up, the traps could be operated by a field party of two 
or three men. 

If the traps worked well and six caribou were caught, 
they could be placed in small carrying crates and shipped by means 
of a rented fishing tug to Michipicoten Island. There they could 
be met and unloaded by men from the White River District. It 
might be necessary to supply them with supplementary food during 
the first winter. That could be handled from White River. 



- 51 - 

The cost of such a project would be small and could be 
split between the Geraldton and White River Districts. Geraldton 
District could pay for the traps, carrying crates and field parties 
on the Slate Islands. White River could pay for the boat rental 
and any winter feeding necessary. If no caribou were caught, only 
the cost of the traps and the field party would be lost. 

Although the caribou would be easier to handle in summer, 
they would also be harder to catch. Trapping them in November 
would alleviate the winter food problem and perhaps prevent some 
winter mortality. 

If this project were approved, the only preparation needed 
would be the collection of lichens in both White River and Geraldton 
Districts before the snow falls, and the construction of the traps 
and crates. If six caribou were not considered to be a large enough 
planting, another six could be transported next year. 

If White River District is agreeable to this proposal 
and if it is cleared by Head Office, there is no reason why it should 
not be undertaken this November. 

Summary i 

1. The week of July 9th to 16th was spent on the Slate Islands in 
making an annual check on the caribou population. 

2. A total of 12 observations of caribou was made. 

3. Tracks of two calves were seen. 

4. Jaws from a caribou which had died a year ago, and from two which 
had died last winter, were collected. At least two more caribou 
are known to have died last winter. 

5. Anglers reported seeing less caribou this year. The significance 
of this report is not known. 

6* Beaver have definitely been re-established on Patterson Island. 
Foxes are present and snowshoe hares seem to be increasing. 

7» Mergansers, gulls, brown creepers and white-throated sparrows 
were the only birds recorded. 

8, A list of the mammals which do not appear to be present on the 
Slate Islands is included. 

9. A new plan for catching and transplanting some caribou from the 
Slate Islands to Michipicoten Island is put forward. 



... . ... _. 



... 



- 52 - 

REPORT ON A WINTER MARTEN-TRAPPING PROJECT, 

WHITE RIVER DISTRICT, 

by 
E. A. Pozzo 



On January 28th, 1956, Joseph Beattie and Doug Morris 
of the Department of Lands and Forests, Province of Nova Scotia 
arrived to start a Live Trapping Project to obtain Marten and 
Fisher for restocking in Nova Scotia. 

January 30th, started to set live traps in the White 

River portion of the Chapleau Game Preserve east of Mosher in the 

area being cut by the Newaygo Company. The camps of this company 
were used as headquarters. 

Forty-seven traps were available for this project, 
consisting of thirty-five large traps and twelve small traps. 
Sizes of large traps? - 32" x 9s" x 9i"« Sizes of small trapss 
- 24" x 6J" x 6J". 

Due to this being a winter trapping project extreme 
caution was necessary in setting and tending traps in order that 
we experience no loss of animals due to exposure to the cold 
weather or from being in traps for too long a period. 

Setting of Traps 

A layer of spruce boughs was first laid on the snow at 
trap site, then trap was set and completely covered with boughs 
to form a very snug cubby. This sheltered animal from cold and 
snow and was believed to be a great factor in precluding loss of 
animals during project. 



All traps were tended the first thing in the morning. 



Bait Used 



Consisted of Dr. Ballards dog food, beaver, beef and 
sardines. Beaver castor was used for scent. 

Best results came from the beaver and beef baits rubbed 
with beaver castor. Sardines froze and no luck was had with them, 

Due to cold weather very little scent was given off by 
these frozen baits. Baits which were rubbed with beaver castor 
held scent for a few days. Since very little scent came from 
baits marten would often by-pass traps apparently without being 
attracted. 

All bait was tied on bottom of traps to ensure that no 
Canada Jays, Squirrels or mice could take bait out of trap. 



- 53 - 

Foxes would come to the traps but would only look in 
and then leave. 

Throughout only eight Canada Jays and one Squirrel were 
caught in traps. 

Temperatures were a great factor. When temperature 
dropped animals were not very active but when it rose animals 
were very active. On February 19th., the temperature rose to 10 
degrees above zero. This was the warmest night during the project 
and 6 marten were trapped that night. 

One Fisher was trapped. Fisher seemed to be very shy 
with all the camp activities going on and they seemed to get back 
further in the woods, this was not so with the Marten which did 
not seem to mind all this. 

Traps were strung out for a distance of 12 miles 
requiring considerable effort to give them daily attention. 



1 Fisher. 



Animals trapped on this project were 1$ Marten and 



Catch and temperature data are as follows ;- 

January 30 first traps set out 
January 31st setting traps 



February 


1st 


setting traps 




February 


2nd 


setting traps 




February 


3rd 


1 marten 




February 


4th 


missed Fisher 




February 


5th 


1 Fisher 




February 


6th 


11 more traps s< 


3t OUt 


February 


7th 


5 more traps set out 


February 


8th 


1 Marten 




February 


9th 


2 Marten 




February 


10th 


2 Marten 




February 


11th 


1 Marten 




February 


12th 


nil 




February 


13th 


nil 




February 


14th 


nil 




February 


15th 


nil 




February 


16th 


1 Marten 




February 


17th 


1 Marten 




February 


18th 


1 Marten 




February 


19th 


6 Marten 




February 


20th 


nil 




February 


21st 


2 Marten 




February 


22nd 


nil 





3 5 below zero 



25 below zero 



8 below zero 
26 below zero 
2 below zero 
2 above zero 
10 above zero 
12 below zero 
17 below zero 
20 below zero 



- 54 - 

INTRODUCTION OF CARP INTO ONTARIO 

by 
Anonymous 



The following item is taken from the "Markham Economist 
and Sun", July 5> 1956, Volume 101, No. 1, which reviews a century 
and is a reprint of an article appearing in the Markham Economist, 
a family newspaper devoted especially to the interests of the 
country, July 1, l3$0s 



" PISCICULTURE Economist, July 1, lggO. 

Messrs. Samuel and B* F, Reesor of Cedar Grove have an 
excellent artificial fish breeding pond and have for some time 
been in search of a prolific fish that would answer our mill pond 
waters. Their study of natural history has been earnest and long, 
and has been rewarded in their selecting the German Carp. The 
next trouble was to get the fish, as there was none nearer than 
the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. Prof. Baird, president, 
could only distribute on recommendation of some member of Congress. 
Through the kindly introduction of Mr. Buell, of Rochester, N.Y. 
to that prince of Isaac Waltons, Seth Green, ten Carp were secured. 
Mr. B. F. Reesor returned from Caledonia, N.Y. on Friday last 
bringing his trophies. These are the first Carp that have ever 
been brought to Ontario, Should they prove half as prolific and 
as good for their country by the introduction of Carp, under the 
difficulties of getting them, then four hundred such politicians 
as the Dominion Member of Parliament for East York, and our 
children's great grandchildren will bless the day that the Reesors 
did a little carping." 



- 55 - 

WINTER SEARCH FOR OUANANICHE, ATHELSTANE AND 

CLIFF LAKES, PORT ARTHUR DISTRICT. 

by 
R. A. Ryder 



Since the 1953 planting of ouananiche in Athelstane Lake, 
two summer and one fall netting surveys have failed to reveal whether 
the fish have survived or not, and if so, their location in the lake. 
As the netting surveys covered only that strata of water within five 
feet of the bottom in various water depths, and as ouananiche are 
said to be somewhat pelagic, at least at certain times of the year, 
it is believed that bottom set gill nets could possibly fail to 
enmesh any of these fish even though lake trout and other species 
were caught in quantity. 

In the fall of 1955 an excess of ouananiche breeding 
stock was introduced into Cliff Lake, a deep oligotrophic lake 
where small lake trout produce but poor fishing at best. It was 
not intended that these fish become established as most of the 
1,000 planted fish were immature males. Since the planting several 
people heard rumors about salmon being caught in Cliff Lake. 
Similar rumors were heard regarding Athelstane Lake and Moda Lake, 
a small lake connected to Athelstane at the northeast corner by a 
shallow stream about one-quarter of a mile in length. These rumors 
were the deciding factors on a proposed winter survey of these two 
lakes in an effort to locate the ouananiche. In both instances the 
purported method of capture was employed; i.e. fishing with lines 
through the ice, employing live minnows as bait. 

Athelstane Lake 

February 27 to 29 inclusive were spent in fishing Athel- 
stane and Moda Lakes. The first day was devoted to Moda, the 
remaining two days to Athelstane. 

The most common types of minnows sold by bait dealers in 
the Lakehead were used, namely two species of dace, Margariscus 
and Chrosomus . These minnows were small, ranging up to three 
inches in length. Waters from four feet in depth up to fifty 
feet were fished. The baited hooks were set one foot under the 
ice, one foot off the bottom, and at various intervals between 
surface and bottom. 

No fish were caught in Moda Lake although one fish broke 
a 251b. test steel leader. This was presumed to be one of the 
large pike which are known to occur in this lake. It is doubtful 
if ouananiche could survive in this lake in the summer as the 
maximum depth is fifteen feet and the habitat appears entirely 
unsuitable, being weedy with a muck bottom. 



- 56 - 

Athelstane Lake proper, was fished in as many variable- 
type habitat situations as time allowed,, Two days' fishing produced 
only pike and lake trout, all taken on lines set one foot from the 
bottom. 

The results from the Athelstane winter fishing survey 
are not conclusive, as the time spent fishing could cover only a 
small portion of the expanse of the lake. It is recommended that 
surface, sub-surface and oblique gill net sets be tried in spring 
or early summer, in an attempt to take the pelagic ouananiche. 
The fishing public should be made aware of the plantings and rumors 
of salmon catches checked. As Athelstane Lake is an hour's walk 
from the nearest bush road plus a second hour's walk to favorable 
fishing sites, few fishermen have bothered with it since its opening 
on January 1, 1956. However, with the advent of summer fishing, 
it is quite likely that the lake will be subjected to heavier 
angling pressure, with the corresponding increased possibility of 
a ouananiche catch. 

Conservation Officers E. J. Swift and Paul Odorizzi 
assisted in the surveys of Athelstane and Moda Lakes. 

Cliff Lake 

This lake is situated three miles from a main camp road. 
It is heavily fished on week-ends although catches are usually poor. 
Lake trout were originally the only species sought and these generally 
range between 8" and 14" » The largest trout reported from this lake 
is under three pounds in weight. 

On March 6, 1956 a survey similar to that in Athelstane 
Lake was attempted in Cliff Lake in an effort tos (1) determine if 
the salmon had survived, (2) obtain stomachs of any available 
salmon for analyses of contents, (3) try to secure more information 
on habits and preferred environmental conditions of the salmon. 

Four holes were cut through the ice leading out from a 
precipitous rock adjacent to the shoreline, to the approximate 
centre of the lake. Water depths ranged from 20' to over 100'. 
Lines were set one foot from bottom, and four, eight, and twelve 
feet under the ice surface. A total of nine ouananiche and one 
lake trout were caught in the day's fishing. Six salmon were 
caught in the hole nearest to shore, one each being caught in the 
other holes. Eight feet beneath the ice was judged to be the 
optimum depth for fishing. Salmon were also caught at four foot 
and twelve foot intervals but with less frequency than at the 
eight foot depth. In all cases the fish were caught on live minnows, 
but only after agitation of them by the hand. Upon being caught, 
some of the fish demonstrated a tendency to head toward the surface 
rather than bore down and put tension on the line. This probably 
corresponds with their habit of breaking water when caught during 
the open water season. One fish followed a baited hook being 
drawn in to the surface where it suddenly took the bait. At the 









- 57 - 

eight foot interval beneath the ice surface, one small lake trout 
was also caught. 

Stomach samples revealed no distinguishable food beyond 
the bait minnows being used in fishing. It is not likely that 
these minnows are native to this lake. More than one-half of the 
stomachs were empty. The remainder bore only well digested food 
taken quite a while previous to the survey. The salmon which 
ranged from 14" to 20", all appeared to be in good condition. 

It is recommended that a further study of this lake be 
completed in the summertime in an effort to make a more definite 
determination of the suitability of the lake for the fish. At 
this time food habits and growth will be more easily established. 
Evidences of spawning should also be checked during the fall run, 
and the possibility of the lake being used for reproduction 
assessed. 

To date nine ouananiche have been caught in Cliff Lake 
by anglers and an additional nine on the survey. The lake shows 
some promise of at least providing put-and-take fishing. Many 
anglers are enthused about the prospects of establishing the 
salmon in some lake in the District. As one angler put it, "I 7 d 
rather catch one good salmon than ten lake trout." 



- 5* - 

FISH TAGGING STUDIES IN WHITEFISH BAY 

LAKE OF THE WOODS IN 1954 AND 1955 

by 
J. M. Fraser 



Whitefish Bay is the eastern portion of Lake of the 
Woods and although it is over 100 square miles in area it is 
connected to the main body of Lake of the Woods only by several 
narrow channels at its northwest extremity. This body of water 
is very irregular in outline and contains hundreds of various 
sized bays and islands. The larger bays and islands have 
received various names. 

Whitefish Bay is one of the deeper areas of Lake of 
the Woods and depths to 200 feet have been found. There is, 
however, an extensive area of shallow water as well. The deeper 
water contains an abundant whitefish population and a moderate 
lake trout population. In the shallower water pickerel, pike, 
bass, muskie and black crappie are taken. 

This body of water is probably the most heavily fished 
of all the waters in the Kenora District. A concentration of some 
forty commercial tourist camps and hundreds of private summer 
camps are located in the general area. Whitefish Bay has been 
closed to commercial fishing since 1936 but in 1954 a small pound 
net fishery for whitefish was started. 

Each fall the Kenora Hatchery fishes 3-5 pound nets in 
Lobstick Bay (see map) to obtain whitefish eggs for culture at 
the hatchery. Since fish were readily available from this 
operation a tagging project was begun in the fall of 1954 and 
continued in 1955. Whitefish, lake trout and pickerel have been 
tagged and released and the following is an account of this study. 

Pickerel Tagging Studies 

During the period October lS-20, 1954 four hundred and 
sixty pickerel were tagged and released from pound nets in 
Lobstick Bay. The tag used was a monel metal strap type (National 
Band and Tag Co.) bearing a serial number and ONT stamped on it. 
The tag was attached to the right operculum by means of special 
tagging pliers. The average total length of eighty-nine measured 
pickerel was 17 inches. Scale samples were taken from these fish 
but age determinations have not yet been made. 

Of the 460 tagged pickerel released in October, 1954 
eleven (2.4$) were recovered during the summer and fall of 1955. 
Ten of these recaptures were reported by anglers and one was 
caught in nets set off the Indian Reserve on Regina Bay. The 
small number of returns demonstrates a dispersion of the pickerel 
after tagging. Three were caught in Regina Bay several miles 
from the tagging site, three were taken at the mouth of Berry Creek 



- 59 - 

several miles in an opposite direction and two were reported 
caught at Whitefish Narrows, twelve miles west of the tagging 
site. The location reported for the other three tags was "White- 
fish Bay" which covers a considerable area. 

.The 2.4% return of tags will require some interpretation 
and speculation. There was a seven month period (October 1954 - 
May 1955) after tagging during which the pickerel were not 
available to angling. If the 450 pickerel remained alive and 
retained their tags through this period then the 2.4% caught by 
anglers would denote the exploitation this population received 
in one summer by angling. However, we have reason to believe 
from our studies in the Winnipeg River and from reference to 
studies elsewhere (Churchill, 1955) that a high percentage of 
the tags attached to the operculum are lost several months after 
tagging. If this is the case in Whitefish Bay, and it probably 
is, then the exploitation of pickerel by anglers is considerably 
higher than our returns indicate. In the fall of 1955 a number 
of pickerel were tagged with jaw tags and the expected returns in 
the coming 1956 season should give a more accurate picture of the 
exploitation by angling. 

Whitefish Tagging Studies 

Although Whitefish Bay probably contains the largest 
whitefish population of any of the areas of Lake of the Woods it 
has been closed to commercial fishing since 1936. A small pound 
net fishery was established in 1954 to harvest some of this 
whitefish population. The Kenora hatchery collects its whitefish 
eggs mainly in the Lobstick Bay area. 

The main purpose of this whitefish tagging study was 
to determine the extent of movement of these fish. Some of the 
commercial fishermen in the main part of Lake of the Woods believe 
that the main lake is constantly being replenished by whitefish 
from Whitefish Bay. 

Over the period October lS-November 11, 1954 five 
hundred whitefish were tagged and released from the hatchery nets 
in Lobstick Bay (see map). The tag was a small plastic disc 
containing a serial number and Ont. Dept. of Lands & Forests 
stamped on it. This tag was sewn to the whitefish immediately 
in front of the dorsal fin by means of 6 lb. test monafiliament 
nylon line. (This method has been used extensively in other 
studies on whitefish and lake trout in Ontario and has proved to 
be efficient for these species). 

After tagging, the fish were measured (total length) 
and scale samples were removed before releasing from the net. The 
size distribution of tagged whitefish is presented in Table I. 
Age determinations have not as yet been made. 

Of the 500 whitefish tagged and released only four have 
been reported as recaptured. One of these fish was caught by a 
commercial fisherman off Chisholm Island a distance of some twenty 



- 60 - 

miles from the tagging site. The remaining three tags were turned 
in to our office by the local fish buyer who found them on white- 
fish sold to him by the Whitefish Bay Reserve Indians. 

These fish were undoubtedly caught in Regina or 
Lobstick Bays although the Indian Band holds a licence only for 
nearby Dogpaw and Caviar Lake. With the Indian Reserve bordering 
on Regina Bay the setting of nets in this area is understandable 
but is kept under control by the local Conservation Officer. 
However, this situation does disrupt the tagging to a certain 
extent. 

It is interesting to note that only one of 500 tagged 
whitefish was caught outside Whitefish Bay although the waters 
immediately outside the bay receive a considerable amount of 
netting. 

Also interesting is the fact that although several 
pound nets were operated in Whitefish Bay proper, and 30,000 pounds 
of whitefish since caught in these nets, that none of these were 
tagged fish. It is possible that the whitefish in Lobstick and 
Regina Bays are more or less a discrete population. 

Lake Trout Tagging Studies 

In the fall of 1954 commercial fishermen were operating 
two pound nets in Whitefish Bay for whitefish and they were asked 
to retain their lake trout for tagging. The location of these 
nets is shown on the accompanying map. On October 17, 1954 these 
nets were lifted and thirty-seven lake trout ranging from five 
to twenty pounds in weight were tagged and released. A strap tag 
similar to that used on pickerel was attached and clinched to the 
right operculum. It was not possible to collect biological data 
at that time. 

Of the thirty-seven lake trout tagged four (10.#$) were 
reported caught during the following year. The first recapture 
was made by commercial nets off Chisholm Island on January 20th 
1955. The known distance travelled by this fish was about 14 
miles. Two lake trout tagged near Sioux Narrows were caught by 
anglers at the Three Sisters Islands, a distance of four miles. 
The fourth recapture was a trout tagged in Knickerbocker Inlet 
and caught by an angler at the mouth of Ghost Bay some & miles 
distant. 

Although the small number of fish involved in this study 
limits the conclusions that may be drawn the returns indicate a 
local movement of the lake trout population and also suggest the 
exploitation (11$) which this population receives. Whitefish Bay 
is possibly the most heavily fished water in the Kenora District 
and if we can obtain reliable data on the exploitation by angling 
in this bay they can be used as an index to conditions in other 
waters. These tagging studies will be continued with this aim in 
mind. 



- 61 - 
Reference s 

Churchill, Warren 

The effect of marking on walleyes. (Abstract) 
17th Midwest Wildlife Conference, 1955. 3 pages. 



TABLE I - Length Distribution of Whitefish Tagged and Released 
from Hatchery Nets in Lobstick Bay During the Fall of 
1954. 

Length Class (Total Length) Number of Fish 

16.0 - 16.9 2 

17.0 7 

18.0 49 

19.0 IIS 

20.0 139 

21.0 79 

22.0 51 

23.0 26 

24.0 13 

25.0 6 

26.0 1 

27.0 1 

Total 492 



cti <D 

bO cd 
O h-q 
Q 



K 



r*^_ 



X 





0) 


c 


> 


cti 


k 


•H 


CD 


T3 


CO , 


G 


CD J __ 



CD 



t 



31 



H 

O 



<*cf> 



C° 



*J 



§ 



A. 



fe 



C-v^vj V^ 



en' 



ci 



^ 



<? 



ft 



* 



•o 









S 



i, 






^ 






/^* 



£ 



05 
£ CO 



0) -H 



,f 









CD 5-., 



r-^ 



n 



e xjT y— 



^ 



»q 

CO 
•H co| 



£,5* 



R 



Sip-^' 



\ 



\ 



c^ 



c^ 



^ 



jfc* 



'M 









CO CD 






& 



o 



I I - t t I I 



I I lt--C\J I I I I 1 oj — to I CD CO I 1 LO (MCO -* - I t\) — I 



o I t- v ™ t- in i ■ i 



<f) 

\- 

u 
<r 

tf) 



— to co cm 01 co in o> 

tO CO — — tO fr- f- t- 

— cr> to oo — oj t- 



I I I I I I I I 



^c--cot--t^tococMcom ic^oinc»^^oo^incoinc^c-c\Jcnino^tot-inincot--ojcMOJ o 

lO CM CO — to 00^1000)0^1003 CJ-> CO in <D O - "<3- t~ C- CM ^ CT> in c\J CT> 

in co co — cm co cm to •<* o> — t- oj co cot- co _ ^ oj — 

CO CO OJ o 

OJ 

i — o i o icD^-toco i 01 ^ i (mo (D(omo o i in e- co icomojCDocomto-^co 10 — 

o>*d- ^t in o (\i cm o m n o n O) i/) ai -* in co t+ to — cm ^o ^j- to 



m^uj i v^'^ ■ u> \l» vu vu i/~ "J-* "^j ■ ui 
COOJ OJO CO CO O CO CD lO CM -3- 

— cm oj in o oj 



-^ to — OJ 



s. = 



ct n z 

u u y 

> X I- 

< CO Ct 



I I I I I I I — I 



I I^ION-Oc-OIBOt-Onco 
OO^T<D(Mt^-t-(M-Mn 

— co co *t cr> — 



1 nin 1 1 1 in oj co 1 1 oj co t- t 

OJ OJ OJ OJ 

CO — -» 



z 
u 

u 

o 
< 

z 
< 

5 



<0 

«n 
I 

«n 
If) 



< 



oit-omoj — coco 

ffiomo t it 

t filOOOtlOt- 



^com-ino-jin 
oj co m <n ©in o <o 
* co 01 co in in 



— co 1 1 t 1 (m it-oj lot-tmoioontnw it in — coojojcoojco 1 1 — •» 1 t- 

ID OJ — CD^J-CMCOmcDCOOjO — t- t- CO OJ t- cot- CO 

OjOt — — CM — 

OJ — 

1 n 010 f — inco — inq-min^cncoscji — lOiMio^iniorycosioooico-o^cooio 

t-OCOCOt-OJOCOCOOt-OCOOjOCDOCO-^-COOCOOJOJOjO soot- O O T CO 

ojinco — ojooincooj — in — •^■ojcooiincoOTf — co co — cot o -a- ^ ojin — — ■* 

t- o eg oj — ^f ©O'jm^^t-^^oj — — co — — t- — — cd^toj 
— in co co oj oj — oj co t 

t-oj 1 coco — co c- O) (m ^- in ■* — co M-ojo>oj^-o>t-ojcoojo>cocoo>mm**CT>oto — 

01 01 t o-ojt <^ o> — o — -t 10 cm o> ^r o -tojoiniooiooi ojcd^j — o> 

o> — <t in — o> t-t-cDOit-t-ooiooj co co o> — co *t co m- t-o co 

— co oj oj — — 



o> *r •$ co 1 n o> co 
in CD co CD — o 
— oj oj oj in 



o> 1 10 in co co 1 1 — 1 

CD O OJ OJ t- CD 

OJ ^f — 



vO 



u 

2 

< 



< 

\- 
z 
o 

>- 

en 

z 
tr 

D 

I- 
u 
cc 

CC 

D 
li- 



ce 
o 



(VJ 
I 

o 



2 

a 
o 

u. 

V) 

t~ 

O 

cc 
I- 
- 
o 

2 
o 
cc 

b- 

Q 
U 

-J 

Cl 

O 
O 



cooj 1 in cd m t — icoin loicocom i in co co ^ — o co — o^oco i co t to coco — — o o t> to 

oj — — — — in oj co — intocotocooc-cooj— oj co — co oj — ojco 

oj co oj — — in — — 



ll(ltllllllll 



ic*-oojo>-— oitot-c-co 1 in 

co — Kt \r> — tooj — co — 

— oj — co oj co 



I I OO) 1 1 co 1 00 



1 1 1 1 



1 1 a> 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 oj 1 1 1 1 



c-cMOjocoococo — ^in i^r iin iojt-ojcooicoma)comcocoo— oo^t^- i i/) t- co in o co 01 i to cv ro co 

ointo— o^rt-oj — t--oj oj -^ c- orvoo^ifi'vrojt-o o co <o — o cm t> ^ co cm toin ryd 

ojoj o co ^ in — a> into t-inojtoointoaoc-Ln oj in co *3- in co in oin c\i 

LO—— .OJCO COCMCOCO — CO 0> 0> CM ^ OJ— to— *3- <^ CM 



— CO t- 

co <* o 

CO «^- — 



I O) 10 I t- CO •* I CO I 



c-- o> a, — <t> — o o» 1 in o 

Oojtooj — co — ■<* OJOJ 

o co — a^ co O) co co o^ 

oj cm o> — in co in — 



co 1 to ^j- CO — I 
co in oj m -3- 

— in co — 



c- m 1 c- o o oj 

to co to cm to in 

co in in o co 



■^r co 
o> in 
in t- 



cn to 01 CO 

c^- in co co 

en ^- to co 

** co in ^ 



o> t- t- co 
co o> — CM 

oot 

CM O ^ CO 
CO OJ OJ 



<o 00 
CM C- 
CO — 



COO^^ 

o — o e- 

- O IDO) 
O — ^ *t 



I I CO I I CM 



t-^-toajocoino 

ai t- OJ — CO O* O CT> 



— co in cm in to t i/)(D^o-fOOOtrocfi(Dco^i/)T — oco— cji *o 01 o — coinco 

O)— *t (T> — CO — Ojt- sJ-COtOCM' t *t-0J^l-tOC0 t-COO^CM— t- co co 10 t in^too 

_ co — en — ^ — in ojto^rm — toojoj — — o 



< 00 cr 

l- UJ < 

en or L- 



- 1 01 t- t- CO if> ai in v cr o 

n. 1 - . , ■■!, (o CM o O — O' — <* o — in — OJ CO 

— — — — n cjrt — O) — 'i 



(o-m-noic-ooo'uojcoo^ — vj- — incocooaicooio^ 

COtOCMC- inOltOCT) (TlOChfM-^OO^I c-co^oo 

ID *f a) ^f t- — tOOJCM — CM — — — 



a: 
< 

2 

D 
if) 



C) ijl I CC 






5 5 



LJ .C 


u_ 




< 


_i or 




^ 5 S -' 


6 


n. 1 = 


1- 


< 


tr 


ir '■> cl 




1 





ui -c 


i.j 





u_ 


O C!) ^1 


.n: 



I tM to I CT> CO en O 

in co to co pj to 

CM OJ CO 



1 CM I (T> <0 1 CO I I CM I 



.r < c/5 r (/) ct w or -j. i/i u 

I- I- U V- U h- h I- !J f- UJ I- U .-c U -r (- U -I. 

ctcEctttccoraircrctiiirorii-Cf^KCCLL. 





2 CO 


CO 





UI < 


ll 1 




UJ 




>- 3 








.-r 




CD CO 


O 




X >- 






i~ a: - 
cr ir: 


fg. 


- 




< 





|o> 



< «a: co < < -j- < co or < co to cr 

(^ — h^UJI — *— I — I — LlJ^i f— lu uj < 

crctcrcrQ.crcrcru.ororQ:ij- 



f- uj y— h- 



<co<coor<c/)or < 

UJ < h- UJ 1 *— 

cciraatrucrctuct 



o 

o < 

_i >- ^ 

x5 " 

D CD = CO = 

O Q < 

— Z) 3 

co en co 



< 


0- 


cr 


u 


0. 


i.j 


p 


< 


) 


II 


PS 


a. 

< 


UI 

LL 


h- 


(E 


I.J 






1- 


u 


cc 


co 


Q 


LU 






^ 


u 


CO 


ir 


LJ 


UI 


< 


II. 


or 


Ll 


( 


0) 


U 


1- 


Ui 


< 


n 


cr 


Ll 



.